Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
Princeton  Theological  Seminary  Library 


https://archive.org/details/presbyterianchur00pres_70 


Presbytery  of  New  York . 


* 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 

AGAINST 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.  D. 


Argument  of 

■ 

JOHN  J.  Me  CO  OR, 


A  Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


Presbytery  of  New  York. 


THE  PRESBYTERIAN  CHURCH  IN  THE 

UNITED  STATES  OF  AMERICA, 


AGAINST 

THE  REV.  CHARLES  A.  BRIGGS,  D.  D. 


Argument  of 

JOHN  J.  Me  CO  OH, 

A  Member  of  the  Prosecuting  Committee. 


JOHN  C.  RANKIN  CO.,  PRINTERS, 
34  CORTLANDT  ST.,  NEW  YORK. 


INTRODUCTION. 


T)  EFORE  bringing  charges  of  heresy  against  a  minister 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  it  is  necessary  to  deter¬ 
mine,  first  of  all,  whether  his  doctrines  diverge  from  those 
of  the  Standards  within  legitimate  limits,  and  do  not 
affect  the  system  of  doctrine  in  which  belief  is  required  ; 
or  whether  the  error  of  his  doctrines  is  vital  and 
essential.*  While  it  is  true  that  many  ministers  do  not 
subscribe  to  the  ipsissima  verba  of  the  Confession, 
readers  of  ordinary  intelligence  can  have  no  difficulty 
in  determining  whether  their  divergence  from  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Standards  is  vital  or  not.  A  trial  for  heresy 
is  not  inTts  essence  a  trial  of  a  man,  but  a  trial  of  a  doc- 

4* 

trine  or  of  doctrines.  It  becomes  the  trial  of  a  man  only 
when  he,  with  full  knowledge  of  the  divergence  of  his 
views  from  the  Standards  of  the  Church,  still  remains  in 
the  ministry,  and  thus  violates  his  ordination  vows.  The 
prosecution  in  the  case  now  before  the  Presbytery 
has  sought  to  make  this  distinction  as  plain  as  possible 
in  the  charges  which  have  been  presented.  It  has  cred¬ 
ited  the  accused  with  good  faith,  virtually  admitting  that 
he  supposes  the  doctrines  which  he  has  uttered,  to  be  in 
harmony  with  the  Standards  of  the  Church.  It  would 
have  been  possible  to  have  included  in  the  charges,  one 
dealing  with  the  violation  of  ordination  vows.  For  it 
is”]  at  least  doubtful  whether  Professor  Briggs  has 
sought  the  peace  or  the  purity  of  the  Church,  either  in 
the  presentation  of  his  doctrines  or  in  the  manner  in 
which  he  has  published  and  defended  them.  The  Com¬ 
mittee  has,  however,  preferred  to  pass  by,  without 
judicial  notice,  his  repeated  attacks  upon  the  traditional 
doctrines  of  the  Church,  upon  its  standards  of  doctrine, 
upon  its  dogmatic  theology,  as  well  as  the  needlessly 
arrogant  and  offensive  tone  of  many  of  his  utterances. 
It  has  preferred  to  confine  the  attention  of  the  Presby¬ 
tery  to  the  simple  issue,  whether  the  doctrines  of  the 


*  Book  of  Discipline,  Sec.  41. 


4 

Inaugural  Address  can  be  held  to  be  in  harmony  with 
the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  dwell  upon  the  fact  that  a  min¬ 
ister  cannot  be  tried  for  consequences  which  may  be  de¬ 
duced  from  his  doctrines.  If  the  doctrines  per  se  are 
not  heretical,  the  fact  that  heretical  conclusions  can  be 
drawn  from  them  does  not  make  the  doctrines  them¬ 
selves  heretical.  If  heretical  conclusions  can  be  logic¬ 
ally  drawn  from  the  teaching  of  a  church,  it  is  the 
church  which  is  responsible  and  not  the  minister  who 
utters  these  doctrines.  So  that,  however  dangerous 
the  results  of  a  certain  teaching  may  be  supposed  to  be, 
it  is  the  teaching  itself  and  not  its  dangers  which  must 

be  judged. 

Although  this  is  true,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
where  an  heretical  doctrine  is  uttered,  its  importance  is 
to  be  estimated  not  only  by  the  fact  that  it  is  a  diver¬ 
gence  from  the  standards,  but  also  by  the  results  which 
follow  the  teaching  of  heresy.  If,  for  example,  a  minis¬ 
ter  should  teach  the  doctrine  of  Materialism,  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  has  a  perfect  right  to  consider,  not  merely  the 
explicit  divergence  from  the  standards  of  such  a  philo¬ 
sophical  theory,  but  also  the  ethical  and  theological  re¬ 
sults  which  follow  from  materialistic  principles.  In  the 
case  before  us,  the  accused  can  claim  with  perfect  jus¬ 
tice  that  the  charges  should  be  confined  to  his  explicit 
utterances,  and  should  not  relate  to  consequences  dedu- 
cible  from  those  utterances.*  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  prosecution  can  claim,  with  equal  justice,  that  having 
proved  the  charges  from  the  explicit  utterances  of 
Professor  Briggs,  it  has  a  perfect  right  to  show  the 
errors  to  be  vital  and  essential,  by  indicating  their  ten¬ 
dencies  and  the  results  to  which  they  lead,  by  discover¬ 
ing  and  setting  forth  the  principle  which  the  utter¬ 
ances  reveal.  For  in  no  other  way  than  this  can 
the  vital  and  essential  character  of  the  divergence  be 
exhibited.  It  is  my  purpose,  therefore,  first  to  consider 
the  charges  and  specifications  seriatim ,  and  afterwards 

*  Craighead  Case,  General  Assembly’s  Minutes,  1824,  pp*  122— 124  , 
Moore’s  Digest,  p.  224. 


5 


to  demonstrate,  with  as  much  clearness  and  fairness  as 
possible,  the  false  principle  which  underlies  the  teaching 
of  Professor  Briggs,  and  the  results  which  are  involved 
in  case  it  be  true  that  these  charges  are  well  founded. 

Before  dealing  with  the  charges  in  their  order,  it  may 
be  well  for  me  to  notice  one  or  two  preliminary  ques¬ 
tions  which  suggest  themselves. 


I.  It  may  be  objected  that  the  charges,  it  presented 
at  all,  should  have  been  founded  not  simply  on  the  In¬ 
augural  Address,  but  on  all  the  numerous  publications 
of  the  author,  in  which  his  views  on  many  subjects,  have 
been  set  forth  more  fully  than  in  the  address.  I  wish 
to  call  your  attention  at  this  point,  very  particularly  to 
a  question  which  has  been  raised  by  those  portions  of 
documentary  evidence  which  have  been  read  in  your 
hearing  by  Prof.  Briggs.  And  I  refer  especially  to  the 
many  extracts  from  his  own  writings  which  do  not  con¬ 
tain  the  errors  with  which  he  is  charged  in  the  indictment. 
Many  of  them  were  written  and  published  before  the 
Inaugural  Address  was  delivered.  x\nd  it  will  be  seen 
by  reference  to  the  specifications  that  most  of  the  pas¬ 
sages  read  in  evidence  by  Prof.  Briggs  are  not  passages 
in  his  writings  upon  which  the  charges  of  error  are 
based.  They  prove,  at  the  most,  that  he  has  often 
taught  doctrines  which  contain  no  error.  But  they  do 
not  prove  that  he  has  retracted  any  or  all  of  the  doc¬ 
trines  set  forth  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  I  do  not  say 
that  he  can  be  charged  with  errors  in  all  the  different 
writings  which  he  has  published.  The  Committee  of 
Prosecution  has  charged  him  with  errors  which  have 
been  chiefly  set  forth  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  The 
accused  is  not  on  trial  for  any  of  the  orthodox  utter¬ 
ances  which  are  doubtless  to  be  found  in  his  works. 
He  is  on  trial  for  certain  erroneous  teaching,  contained 
in  the  Inaugural  Address,  and  works  referred  to  therein. 
If  the  orthodox  passages  which  have  been  read  in  your 
hearing  were  the  only  writings  of  Prof.  Briggs,  he 
would  not  have  been  charged  with  the  offences  found 


Preliminary 

Suggestions. 


6 


in  the  charges  and  specifications.  He  is  not  on  trial  for 
any  orthodox  utterances.  He  is  on  trial  for  certain 
explicit,  definite  statements  in  the  Inaugural  Address, 
which  have  never  been  retracted.  It  is  not  enough  for 
him  to  prove  that  he  has  in  many  places  taught  ortho¬ 
dox  doctrine,  and  he  is  called  upon  to  defend,  not 
the  orthodox  utterances  of  his  various  writings,  but  the 
alleged  erroneous  utterances  of  certain  writings,  which 
he  has  declined  to  retract. 

i.  It  is  possible  for  a  man  to  write  ten  books,  nine  of 
which  contain  no  heretical  utterance,  but  the  tenth  of 
which  is  heretical.  The  orthodox  utterances  of  the 
former  works  do  not  retract  the  heretical  utterances  of 
the  last  publication.  A  retraction  of  heretical  doctrines 
can  be  made  only  after  the  heretical  utterances  have  been 
made.  If  (and  I  state  it  only  as  a  supposition)  the  former 
publications  of  Professor  Briggs  had  been  perfectly  or¬ 
thodox,  we  should  be  disposed  to  say  that  in  the  Inau¬ 
gural  he  wrote  inconsistently.  And  in  effect  that  is  what 
was  said  after  his  inaugural  address.  He  was  accused  by 
critics  of  making  contradictory  statements.  In  this  case, 
it  was  perfectly  possible  for  him  to  come  to  the  Presby¬ 
tery  and  to  say :  “The  Inaugural  Address  does  not  ex¬ 
press  my  real  views  on  the  subject  of  Biblical  Theology, 

I  prefer  to  stand  by  the  statements  of  my  earlier  works 
to  the  exclusion  of  the  inaugural.  My  earlier  publications 
were  orthodox,  my  inaugural  address  does  not  represent 
my  position.”  (I  am  still  only  assuming  that  the  earlier 
publications  contain  nothing  heretical  or  erroneous.) 

But  what  has  Professor  Briggs  done  ?  He  has  repub¬ 
lished  his  Inaugural  Address  in  a  second  edition,  with¬ 
out  retraction  or  amendment,  in  the  face  of  a  fire  of 
hostile  criticism.  The  third  edition  of  the  Inaugural, 
copies  of  which  have  been  presented  to  the  members  of 
this  court,  was  published  subsequent  to  his  response  to 
the  original  charges  and  specifications,  and  shows  that 
response  to  have  been  in  no  sense  a  retraction.  For  in 
the  preface  to  this  third  edition,  Professor  Briggs  writes: 

“  I  have  seen  nothing  in  the  hostile  criticism  to  lead 
me  to  make  any  changes  whatever,  either  in  the  matter 


7 

or  the  form  of  the  address  *  *  *  *.  This  third  edition 
contains  the  charges  made  against  me  before  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  of  New  York,  October  5th,  and  my  answer 
thereto.” 

If  that  means  anything,  it  means  that  he  has  de¬ 
parted  from  the  alleged  orthodoxy  of  his  earlier  po¬ 
sition,  and  is  ready  to  stand  by  the  doctrines  of  the 
address,  without  retraction.  Of  two  contradictory 
propositions,  one  must  be  false.  If,  therefore,  it  be  held 
that  his  Inaugural  Address  does  not  agree  with  the 
doctrines  of  his  earlier  publications,  and  if  the  former 
publications  are  orthodox,  then  the  Inaugural  Address 
contradicts  what  is  orthodox. 

2.  The  importance  of  the  Inaugural  Address  as  an 
expression  of  Professor  Briggs’s  opinions  has  been  al¬ 
luded  to.  The  objection  was  made  by  some  one,  when 
these  proceedings  were  first  instituted,  that  there  was  a 
certain  unfairness  in  trying  a  man  for  heresy  on  a 
document,  particularly  on  an  address,  especially  on  a 
document  so  short  as  the  Inaugural  Address.  Now, 
it  is  perfectly  plain  that  the  length  or  the  special 
treatment  of  a  theological  utterance  is  not  necessarily 
related  to  heresy.  A  man  might  be  convicted  of 
heresy  on  the  deliberate  utterance  of  the  single  word 
“  No,”  in  response  to  a  question  as  to  his  belief  in 
certain  essential  doctrines.  It  is,  of  course,  conceivable 
that  a  minister  in  a  single  sermon,  or  in  an  isolated 
article,  might,  either  through  carelessness  or  through 
an  unfortunate  literary  style,  say  many  things  which 
might  not  be  in  harmony  with  the  standards.  It 
would  be  unfair  to  make  detached  utterances  of  this 
kind  the  basis  of  a  judicial  investigation.  But  the 
inaugural  address  is  not  an  utterance  of  this  kind.  It  is 
the  deliverance  of  a  professor  about  to  assume  the 
duties  of  a  new  department.  It  would  be  easy  to 
show  its  perfect  harmony  with  many  passages  in  other 
works  by  Professor  Briggs.  But  what  makes  it  signifi¬ 
cant,  in  addition  to  the  circumstances  under  which  it 
was  delivered,  is  that  it  deals  with  themes  of  such  pri¬ 
mary  importance.  It  is  not  a  mere  outline  of  his  plan 


8 


of  lectures.  It  is  a  deliberate  and  aggressive  utterance 
with  respect  to  fundamental  principles  of  our  Faith.  It 
deals  with  the  doctrine  of  divine  authority,  with  the 
doctrine  of  God,  with  the  doctrine  of  Scripture,  with 
the  doctrine  of  Redemption,  with  the  doctrine  of  man 
and  of  sin,  with  the  doctrine  of  prophecy,  and  lastly 
with  the  doctrine  of  the  future  state.  That  the  utter¬ 
ances  of  the  Inaugural  can  be  supported  by  quotations 
from  Professor  Briggs’s  other  writings  is  claimed  by 
himself.*  But  others  may  perhaps  be  pardoned  if 
they  decline  to  infer  that  the  statements  of  the  Inau¬ 
gural  are  to  be  accepted  because  they  may  be  found  in 
“  Whither  ”  or  in  “  Biblical  Study.”  If  the  utterances 
contained  in  the  Inaugural  are  in  harmony  with 
Professor  Briggs’s  other  works,  then  no  injustice  can 
be  done  by  founding  the  charges  on  the  utterances 
of  the  Inaugural.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  a 
divergence  of  the  views  set  forth  in  the  Inaugural  and 
those  of  the  earlier  publications,  then  the  later  utter¬ 
ance,  published  and  republished,  may  be  assumed  to  be 
the  more  faithful  expression  of  the  author’s  views. 

II.  It  is  quite  irrelevant  to  object  that  Professor  Briggs 
has  set  forth  nothing  in  his  Inaugural  Address  which 
has  not  been  before  the  Church  for  months  and  even 
years.  It  has  been  asked  why  he  was  not  tried  for  the 
publication  of  any  of  his  earlier  works.  Assuming  that 
the  utterances  of  the  Inaugural  are  in  harmony  with  his 
earlier  publications,  the  answer  is,  that  teaching  of  the 
kind  contained  in  the  Inaugural  Address  and  contained 
in  Professor  Briggs’s  earlier  publications,  has  already,  in 
former  years,  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Church,  as 
may  be  learned  by  reference  to  the  deliverances  of  the 
General  Assemblies  of  1882,1883  and  i888,f  on  the  subject 
of  theological  teaching  in  the  Presbyterian  seminaries. 
The  only  complaint  which  may  be  made  is  from  the  side 
of  Professor  Briggs’s  opponents,  who  may  justly  claim 

*  See  Inaugural  Address,  passim. 

f  General  Assembly  Minutes,  1882,  p.  92. 

“  “  “  1883,  p.  631,  632. 

“  “  “  1888,  p.  89,  90. 


9 

that  such  teaching  has  been  treated  with  too  great  tol¬ 
eration  and  moderation  in  the  times  that  are  past. 

III.  It  is  further  to  be  noticed  that  the  language  of 
the  address  itself  furnishes  prima  facie  a  ground  for 
supposing  that  the  author  is  adverse  to  the  doctrines  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  This  church  stands  com¬ 
mitted  by  its  constitution,  not  only  to  the  supreme  au¬ 
thority  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  also  to  an  interpretation 
of  Holy  Scripture.  This  interpretation  is  found  in  the 
Standards.  In  view  of  this,  many  of  Prof.  Briggs’s 

declarations  are  significant. 

“  The  Reformers,”  he  says,  “  brought  the  Bible  from 
its  obscurity  for  a  season,  but  their  successors,  the 
scholastics  and  ecclesiastics  of  Protestantism,  pursued 
the  old  error  and  enveloped  the  Bible  with  creeds  and 
ecclesiastical  decisions,  and  dogmatic  systems,  and  sub¬ 
stituted  for  the  authority  of  God  the  authority  of  a  Prot¬ 
estant  rule  of  faith 

Again  he  says:  “We  have  undermined  the  breast¬ 
works  of  traditionalism ;  let  us  blow  them  to  atoms. 
We  have  forced  our  way  through  the  obstructions  ;  let 
us  remove  them  from  the  face  of  the  earth,  t 

«  Here  in  the  citadel  of  the  Bible  two  hosts  confront 
the  most  sacred  things  of  our  religion  the  one,  the 
defenders  of  traditionalism,  trembling  for  the  aik  of 
God ;  the  other,  the  critics  (of  whom  Prof.  Briggs  is  one), 
a  victorious  army,  determined  to  capture  all  its  sacred 
treasures  and  to  enjoy  all  its  heavenly  glories.  £ 

“  Another  fault  of  Protestant  theology  is  in  its  limitation 
of  the  process  of  redemption  to  this  world.  ”§ 

“  Vastly  better  to  be  born  to  die,  than  to  be  born  to 
live  in  this  uncertain  world.  What  parent  would  not 
prefer  to  lay  all  his  children  in  an  early  grave,  assured 
of  their  salvation,  rather  than  expose  them  to  the  dread 
ful  risks  of  life  and  the  possibility  of  eternal  damnation  ? 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  29. 
fid.,  p.  41. 

%Id.,  p.  41. 

§  Id.,  page  53. 

1  The  italics  are  mine. — J.  J.  McC. 


10 


According  to  the  current  beliefs,  those  Chinese  mothers 
who  put  their  children  to  death  make  more  Christians 
than  all  the  missionaries.”* * * § 

“It  is  my  opinion  that  if  the  grace  of  God  should  so 
impel  a  man  that  he  could  be  transformed  into  the 
image  of  the  holy  Jesus,  and,  like  Jesus,  rebuke  sin  in 
high  places,  and  trouble  the  people  with  his  unapproach¬ 
able  holiness,  he  would  earn  the  reward  of  Jesus  even 
in  this  generation — at  the  hands  of  Christian  theologians 
and  ecclesiastics.  The  cry  would  resound  through  the 
streets  of  New  York,  ‘  Crucify  him!  Crucify  him  !’  ”  f 

“  The  Reason  also  has  its  rights,  its  place  and  impor¬ 
tance  in  the  economy  of  Redemption.  I  rejoice  at  the  age 
of  Rationalism,  with  all  its  wonderful  achievements  in 
philosophy. 

The  objection  of  Prof.  Briggs  is  not  merely  to  cer¬ 
tain  phases  of  theology  within  his  own  communion,  but 
to  the  essential,  distinctive  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  His  language  is  not  that  of  a  man  pleading 
for  the  furtherance  and  promotion  of  his  church  and  its 
creed,  but  that  of  an  iconoclast.  He  addresses  a  Pres¬ 
byterian  audience  in  this  way,  and  no  one  need  be  sur¬ 
prised  at  his  final  appeal : 

“  Criticism  is  at  work  with  fire  and  knife.  Let  us  cut 
down  everything  that  is  dead  and  harmful,  every  kind 
of  dead  orthodoxy,  every  species  of  effete  ecclesias- 
ticism,  all  merely  formal  morality,  all  those  dry  -and 
brittle  fences  that  constitute  denominationalism,  and  are 
the  barriers  of  Church  Unity.  ”§ 

I  admit  that  such  language  as  I  have  quoted  is  am 
biguous,  so  long  as  it  stands  apart  from  the  context. 
We  may  not  learn  from  these  passages  of  the  address 
what  hurtful  doctrines  these  are,  against  which  the 
Professor  earnestly  declaims.  But  when  we  turn  to 
the  charges  before  us,  and  notice  the  proof  given  to 


*  Inaugural  Address,  2d  Edition,  p.  105. 

-fid.,  page  59. 

|  Inaugural  Address,  p.  65. 

§  “  “  P-  67. 

1  The  italics  are  mine. — J.  J.  McC. 


II 


support  them,  we  shall  find  the  desired  information, 
will  be  shown  that  the  reforms  suggested  in  the  Inau¬ 
gural  Address  itself,  are  inconsistent  with  the  Standards 
to  which  Prof.  Briggs  has  subscribed.  Tlle 
works  of  traditionalism,  the  citadel  of  the  Bible  the 
so-called  dead  orthodoxy,  that  to  which  fire  and  km  e 
are  to  be  applied-all  these  are  simply  certain  doctrines 
of  the  Holy  Scripture,  as  interpreted  in  the  Standards 

of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

To  adopt  for  a  moment  the  expressive  imagery  of  the 
Professor,  it  is  the  solemn  duty  of  this  court  to  deter¬ 
mine  whether  our  citadel  shall  be  surrendered  to  those 
who  have  declared  their  opposition  to  the  faith  which 
we  are  pledged  to  defend. 


Charges  I.  and  II.  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  Prof.  Briggs, 
that  there  are  three  great  fountains  of  divine  author- 
ity — The  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason*  This  is 
in  opposition  to  the  teaching  of  our  Standards  which 
declare  the  Holy  Scriptures  to  be  the  only  rule  of  faith 
and  life,  of  faith  and  obedience,  or,  as  it  is  expressed  in 
the  ordination  vow,  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  The  Confession  of  Faith  teaches,  and  the 
ordination  vow  taken  by  every  minister  of  our  Church 
assumes,  the  infallibility  of  the  Scriptures.f  It  is 
impossible  to  separate  a  divine  authority  from  the 
infallible  rule. 

Professor  Briggs  himself  says  in  his  Inaugura 
Address :  “  Divine  authority  is  the  only  authority  to 
which  man  can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which  he 
can  rest  in  loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous  con¬ 
fidence.”  % 

The  only  distinction  that  can  be  made  between  an 
infallible  rule  and  a  divine  authority  is  that  the  former 
expression  is  stronger  than  the  latter.  But  it  may  be 
safely  affirmed,  in  so  far  as  religious  matters  are  con- 


Charges  I. 
and  II. 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  24.  . 

Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Secs,  i.,  ii..  vm 
2,  3.  Shorter  Catechism,  2.  Ordination  Vow, 
Chap,  xv.,  Art.  xii. 

|  Inaugural  Address,  p.  24. 


.,  x.  Larger  Catechism, 
Form  of  Government, 


12 


cerned,  that  wherever  the  authority  is  divine,  the  rule 
is  infallible,  and  that  wherever  the  rule  is  infallible  the 
authority  is  divine.  If  a  fallible  rule  exists,  it  cannot  be 
a  rule  which  is  supported  by  divine  authority.  And  if 
the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule,  it  must  be  the  only 
infallible,  that  is  to  say  divine,  authority.  These  are  the 
first  principles  of  revealed  religion. 

As  Professor  Briggs  does  not  deny  that  the  Bible  is 
a  source  of  divine  authority,  but  does  affirm  that  the 
Reason  and  the  Church  are  also  sources  of  divine 
authority,  it  is  only  necessary  at  this  point  that  it  should 
be  considered  whether  it  is,  indeed,  true  that  divine 
authority  is  to  be  found  in  the  Reason  and  in  the  Church. 
It  is  really  no  part  of  our  duty  to  show  and  to  prove 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  source  of  divine  authority ; 
for  to  deny  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  is  contrary  to  Presbyterian  doctrine. 
To  assume  that  it  is  necessary  to  prove  that  the  Bible 
is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  is  to 
assume  that  we  are  no  longer  Presbyterians,  for  our 
Church  asserts  that  it  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith 
and  practice. 

Professor  Briggs’s  position  in  this  respect  places  him 
ipso  facto  in  a  non-Presbyterian  position,  for  unless  the 
Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  the 
only  fountain  of  divine  authority,  one  may  set  up  doc¬ 
trines  on  a  rational  or  ecclesiastical  foundation  and  call 
them  Presbyterian.  The  mere  fact  that  the  doctrine 
of  a  three-fold  source  of  authority  is  held  by  Professor 
Briggs,  the  mere  fact  that  an  apology  for  the  doctrine 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church  is  called  for  at  this  point, 
establishes  the  truth  of  the  first  two  charges.  But, 
in  order  that  the  issue  may  be  perfectly  clear,  we  may 
dwell  for  a  few  moments  upon  this  specification. 

It  is  no  part  of  the  function  of  this  Committee,  nor 
is  it  necessary  for  Professor  Briggs,  to  explain  and 
treat  thoroughly  that  important  philosophical  and 
apologetical  question  as  to  the  relation  of  Reason  and 
Revelation,  nor  to  set  forth  how  far  the  Church’s  au¬ 
thority  is  founded  on  divine  truth.  The  Confession  of 


13 

Faith  gives  no  option.  Whatever  the  Reason  may 
accomplish,  whatever  the  Church  may  teach,  if  we 
are  Presbyterians  we  have  no  right  to  claim  that  the 
Reason  and  the  Church  are  sources  of  divine  authority. 
That  is  a  matter  which  is  settled  by  all  men  when  they 
become  Presbyters  of  our  Church. 


Charge  I.  is  as  follows: 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the 
Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which  may 
and  does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men 
as  reject  the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclama¬ 
tion  of  the  will  of  God  and  reject  also  the  way  of 
salvation  through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of  the 
Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein;  which  is  contrary 
to  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  is  most  necessary,  and  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.” 

It  may  be  freely  admitted  that  there  is  great  latitude 
under  the  Confession  as  to  the  place  of  Reason  as 
an  authority  in  matters  of  religion.  Before  con¬ 
demning  Professor  Briggs’s  doctrine,  it  is  necessary  to 
consider  the  perfect  legitimacy  and  orthodoxy  of  certain 
positions  taken  by  him.  For  example,  there  will  be 
no  dispute  with  him  on  the  part  of  many  Christians 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  influences  the  mind  directly, 
although  there  are  those  who  hold  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
acts  always  through  the  Word,  employing  means  to  the 
great  end,  the  salvation  and  sanctification  of  the  soul. 


Authority  of 
the  Reason. 


Nor  will  it  be  disputed  by  those  who  believe  in  the 
inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  that  God  moved  directly 
the  mind  of  those  who  committed  the  Word  to  writing. 
It  is  also  true  that  the  conscience  may  be  the  vehicle  of 
divine  truth.  But  if  this  be  the  same  with  holding  that 
the  Reason  is  a  source  of  divine  authority,  then  it  is 
quite  legitimate  to  conclude  that  the  Reason  is  the  only 


14 


divine  authority.  For  the  Word  is  apprehended  by  the 
Reason,  just  as  the  direct  teaching  of  the  Spirit  is  appre¬ 
hended  by  the  Reason,  and  our  source  of  divine  author¬ 
ity  is  thus  confined  on  Professor  Briggs’s  own  principles 
to  the  Reason  alone.  But  the  human  conscience  is 
perverted,  and  cannot  therefore  be  called  a  divine 
authority.  If,  by  the  assertion  that  the  Reason  is  a 
source  of  divine  authority,  Professor  Briggs  means  to 
say  that  God  speaks  directly  to  the  Reason,  then  there  is 
nothing  heretical  in  the  doctrine.  In  the  appendix  to  his 
Inaugural*  he  has  set  forth  with  perfect  clearness  a 
doctrine  of  the  Reason  which  is  in  conformity  with 
the  doctrine  of  the  Standards.  But  he  has  gone  much 
farther  than  that.  It  is  absolutely  impossible  to  inter¬ 
pret  his  words  in  any  but  the  one  way,  and  that  is,  that 
the  Church,  the  Bible  and  the  Reason  are  co-ordinate  as 
authorities.  Unless  they  are  co-ordinate,  they  cannot 
be  divine.  If  there  should  be  anything  in  the  data  of 
one  of  these  authorities  contradictory  to  the  data  of  any 
other  of  the  three,  there  would  be  a  conflict  of  divine 
authority,  which  is  impossible.  When  the  question  is 
raised,  Should  a  certain  statement  of  the  Bible  or  of 
the  Church  be  accepted?  we  should  have  to  reject  such 
portions  of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  and  of  the  Church  as 
seem  to  us  either  above  or  contradictory  to  Reason,  or 
else  we  must  hold  that  the  Church  and  the  Reason  are 
not  sources  of  divine  authority.  If  we  reject  any  portion 
of  the  teaching  of  the  Bible  because  it  seems  repugnant 
to  Reason,  we  impeach  the  truthfulness  of  God,  and  the 
authorities  are  not  co-ordinate,  but  the  Reason  is 
supreme. 

In  addition  to  this,  unless  the  three  authorities  are 
co-ordinate,  then  the  Reason  or  the  Church  is  the 
supreme  authority,  for,  as  Professor  Briggs  claims,  the 
Bible  is  not  inerrant,  and  its  errors  must  therefore  be 
corrected  either  by  the  Reason  or  the  Church. 

Unless  the  three  authorities  are  co-ordinate,  they  can¬ 
not  be  held  to  be  divine  authorities,  unless  they  are  the 
authority  of  three  divinities  which  are  not  co-ordinate. 


*  Inaugural  Address,  second  edition,  appendix,  p.  89. 


15 

In  the  Christian  system,  the  divine  authority  can  no 
more  be  subordinate  to  another  than  one  divinity  can 
be  subordinate  to  another. 

If  we  come  back  once  more  to  the  claim  that  Professor 
Briggs  means  by  Reason  the  conscience  and  the  relig¬ 
ious  feeling,  it  must  be  answered  that  the  conscience 
cannot  be  said  to  be  a  divine  authority  except  in  a  per¬ 
fect  man,  for  the  conscience  has  been  perverted  by  the 
Fall.  The  religious  feeling,  on  the  other  hand,  is  not 
a  source  of  divine  authority,  but  only  a  feeling  about 
some  truth  of  religion,  so  that  truth  must  first  be  re¬ 
vealed  or  discovered  in  order  that  the  religious  feeling 
may  be  awakened  about  that  which  is  truly  divine. 

If  it  should  be  held  that  the  religious  feeling  gives  us 
direct  knowledge  or  consciousness  of  divine  truth,  it 
must  be  answered  that  this  view  is  contrary  to  the  dec¬ 
laration  of  the  Standards  that  the  W ord  of  God  is  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

If  it  should  be  admitted  that  the  Reason,  although  a 
divine  authority,  is  not  inerrant,  it  must  be  answered 
that  in  such  case  it  cannot  be  divine.  Professor  Briggs 
has,  however,  not  left  us  in  doubt  as  to  his  meaning, 
because  he  has  illustrated  it,  in  the  first  place  by  the 
example  of  Martineau,*  and  in  the  second  place  by  his 
reference  to  the  heathen  in  the  appendix  to  his  In¬ 
augural  Address,  second  edition,  f 

i.  I  shall  first  notice  the  illustration  of  this  principle 
of  the  authority  of  the  Reason,  as  it  is  presented  by 
Professor  Briggs  in  the  case  of  Martineau.  And  let  it 
be  distinctly  understood  that  we  are  not  in  this  trial  to 
pass  judgment  on  Martineau  personally.  We  are  not 
to  engage  in  the  personal  and  uncharitable  discussion  of 
the  character  and  eternal  hopes  of  that  eminent  writer, 
but  are  to  ask  whether  his  published  doctrines  indicate 
that  the  Reason  alone  will  give  one  a  saving  knowledge 
of  God.  Let  us  assume, 

a .  That  the  Reason  does  give  us  a  knowledge  of  God. 
If  this  be  true,  and  it  is  undoubtedly  true,  does  that 


Martineau. 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  27. 
•f-  lb.,  second  edition,  p.  88. 


i6 


make  the  Reason  a  source  or  fountain  of  divine  author¬ 
ity  ?  If  God  leaves  traces  of  His  power,  of  His  intelli¬ 
gence,  of  His  love,  of  His  justice  and  holiness  on  the 
face  of  Nature  or  in  my  fallen  mind,  can  my  mind  and 
can  Nature  be  said  to  be  sources  of  divine  authority  ? 
Evidently  not.  The  distinction  between  human  author¬ 
ity  and  the  divine  authority  becomes  meaningless  if  the 
Reason  is  a  source  of  divine  authority. 

b .  Let  us  assume  also  that  we  reach  a  knowledge  of 
God  independent  of  the  Bible  through  the  Reason,  and 
that  in  this  limited  sense  Reason  is  a  source  of  divine 
authority.  Is  that  all  that  Professor  Briggs  has  main¬ 
tained  ?  The  illustration  of  Martineau  shows  us,  that  by 
finding  God,  more  is  meant  than  inferences  about  God 
drawn  by  the  Reason.  It  means  that  God  is  the  object  of 
knowledge  such  as  will  save  the  soul.  And  it  is  this 
doctrine  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  first  charge. 

Now,  if  we  take  the  more  religious  parts  of  Mar- 
tineau’s  writings,  we  shall  find  that  they  consist  of  a 
presentation  of  ethics  which  agrees  for  the  most  part 
with  the  doctrines  of  revealed  religion,*  of  an  able  and 
eloquent  presentation  of  the  theistic  argument, f  and  of 
lectures  and  sermons  founded  on  texts  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture.^:  So  that,  assuming  that  Martineau  has  attained  to 
a  saving  knowledge  of  God  in  the  confessional  and 
scriptural  sense,  it  cannot  be  claimed  that  this  religious 
knowledge  comes  altogether  and  solely  from  the  Reason. 
Can  such  a  thing  be  affirmed  of  a  man  who  has  lived  for 
more  than  three-score  years  in  a  Christian  land,  who  has 
stood  for  that  time  on  the  very  threshold  of  a  Christian 
Church  which  puts  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  the  forefront 
of  its  doctrine  ?  If  Martineau  held  to  every  article  of 
the  creed,  it  would  not  justify  Professor  Briggs’s  state¬ 
ment.  But,  whatever  the  personal  creed  or  character 
of  Martineau  may  be,  he  is  known  to-day  as  a  radical 
opponent  of  scriptural  truth.  If  Professor  Briggs 
had  called  him  a  representative  philosopher,  or  a 
representative  critic,  or  a  representative  rationalist  of 


*  Types  of  Ethical  Theory.  Study  of  Religion, 
f  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion.  Ek.  I.,  chap,  l,  2. 
t  Hours  of  Thought  on  Sacred  Things. 


17 

our  time,  one  might  be  disposed  to  put  another  inter¬ 
pretation  on  his  proposition  that  there  are  three  foun¬ 
tains  of  divine  authority.  But  he  describes  him  with 
Newman  and  Spurgeon  as  one  of  the  representative 
Christians.*  In  what  sense  can  Martineau  be  said  to 
have  found  God  through  the  Reason,  so  as  to  be  called 
a  representative  Christian?  He,  like  other  beings  of 
which  the  Holy  Scriptures  speak,  believes  that  there  is 
one  God,  and  he  does  well.  But  he  does  not  believe, 
or  he  states  that  he  does  not  believe,  in  the  Incar¬ 
nation^  or  in  the  divinity  of  Jesus  Christ.;);  The  divine 
authority  of  the  Reason  has  led  him  to  reject  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Atonement, §  of  almost  all  the  most  authori¬ 
tative  utterances  of  our  holy  religion.  [  The  divine 
authority  of  his  reason  has  contradicted,  and  contra¬ 
dicted  flatly,  the  infallibility  of  the  Word  of  God,T 
and  yet  we  are  told,  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  that  the 
average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not  assign 
him  (Spurgeon)  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God 
than  Martineau  or  Newman.** 

2.  If  there  were  any  doubt  as  to  Professor  Briggs’s 
meaning,  it  would  be  dispelled  by  the  second  illustration 
which  we  have  chosen  from  his  discussion  of  this  im¬ 
portant  subject.  He  declares  that  “  Unless  God’s  au¬ 
thority  is  discerned  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  there 
is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of  the  heathen  could  ever 
have  been  saved,  for  they  know  nothing  of  Bible  or 
Church. We  shall,  doubtless,  hear  either  from  Pro¬ 
fessor  Briggs  or  from  his  supporters  a  great  deal  about 
“a  priori  reasoning.”  Here  is  an  example  of  “a priori 
reasoning”  in  its  worst  form.  The  Confession,  and  the 
Holy  Scriptures  on  which  the  Confession  is  founded, 
repeatedly  teach  and  emphasize  the  fact  that  Jesus 

*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  28. 

t  Seat  of  Authority  in  Religion.  Bk.  IV.,  chap.  2  ;  also  p.  650. 

|  lb.,  Bk.  IV.,  chap.  2. 

§  lb.,  p.  486. 

||  lb.,  p.  650. 

IT  Book  II.,  chap.  2 ;  also  p.  650. 

*  *  Inaugural  Address,  p.  28. 

ff  Inaugural  Address.  Second  edition,  appendix,  pp.  88,  89. 


i8 

Christ  is  the  only  Saviour ,*  and  that  faith  is  the  means 
by  which  salvation  is  secured,  f  Now,  it  is  not  heresy 
to  express  the  hope  that  the  heathen  who  have  never 
heard  of  Jesus  Christ  may  be  saved,  although  the  Chris¬ 
tian  Church  by  its  missions  seems  to  declare  that  it  is 
carrying  the  gospel  to  a  lost  world.  But  it  is  heretical 
to  contradict  the  express  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God, 
and  found  that  contradiction  on  the  salvation  of  the 
heathen  world.:);  Why  not  carry  the  reasoning  farther 
and  say  that  because  the  heathen  cannot  be  lost  there¬ 
fore  they  must  all  have  a  saving  knowledge  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  if  they  worship  idols,  they  do  it  on  divine 
authority,  because  they  cannot  be  lost.  There  are,  doubt¬ 
less,  many  arguments  in  the  works  of  anti-Christian 
thinkers  to  prove  that  a  man  does  not  have  to  believe 
in  Christ  to  be  saved.  It  is  no  concern  of  the  Presbytery 
or  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  call  such  men  to 
account  before  the  courts  of  the  Church.  But  we  do 
say  that  when  one  of  our  clergy  contradicts  in  this  plain 
manner  the  very  doctrine  which  is  of  the  essence  of 
Presbyterianism — or,  rather,  which  is  of  the  essence  of 
Christianity — then  we  have  to  choose  between  our  doc¬ 
trines  and  those  of  the  man  who  flatly  contradicts  them. 

It  is  evident  that  if  the  Reason  is  a  divine  authority, 
then  whatever  the  Reason  affirms  to  be  true  is  true. 
But  the  Reason  in  different  men  affirms  different  things 
to  be  true.  The  standard  by  which  the  truths  of  the 
Reason  with  regard  to  Religion  are  to  be  judged  is, 
according  to  Presbyterian  doctrine,  not  the  Reason  or 

the  Church,  but  the  Word  of  God. 

If  it  should  be  claimed  that  the  three  fountains  of 
divine  authority  referred  to  are  complementary  authori¬ 
ties,  so  that  the  Bible  reveals  one  kind  of  religious  truth, 
the  Church  another,  and  the  Reason  another,  the  conclu¬ 
sion  reached  is  contradictory  to  the  statement  that  the 
Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

*  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  VIII.,  with  Proof  Texts.  Larger  Cate¬ 
chism,  36.  Shorter  Catechism,  21. 

|  Confession  of  Faith,  chap.  XIV.,  with  Proof  Texts.  Larger  Cate¬ 
chism,  72,  153.  Shorter  Catechism,  86. 

£  Inaugural  Address,  2d  ed.,  p.  88. 


19 


We  are  not  ready  even  for  a  moment,  if  we  are  believers 
in  the  Christianity  of  the  Bible,  to  join  in  the  sentiment  of 
Professor  Briggs  in  this  respect.  He  asserts,  “  It  may 
be  that  these  modern  thinkers  have  a  divine  calling  to 
withdraw  men  from  mere  priestcraft,  ceremonialism, 
dead  orthodoxy  and  ecclesiasticism,  and  concentrate 
their  attention  on  the  essentials  of  the  Christian  relig¬ 
ion.”*  What  men?  These  men  who  “depreciate  the 
Bible  and  the  Church  as  merely  external  modes  of 
finding  God,”f  for  if  we  are  Presbyterians,  we  believe 
that  the  Bible  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  “  We  are  warned  lest  we  *  *  *  *  depre¬ 

ciate  the  Reason  and  the  Christian  consciousness,”^:  but 
are  we  not  rather  warned  lest  we  depreciate  the  obliga¬ 
tory  and  infallible  character  of  the  objective  revelation  of 
God  in  His  Word,  lest  we  depreciate  the  atonement  of 
Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  end  of  the  law  for  righteousness 
to  every  one  that  believeth?  This  doctrine  as  to  the 
divine  authority  of  the  human  reason  is  only  a  symptom 
of  a  general  principle  which  we  shall  have  occasion  to 
notice  later  on.  But  it  is  a  symptom  which  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  fatal  symptom,  a  symptom  of  departure 
not  merely  from  the  Presbyterian  standards,  but  of  de¬ 
parture  from  that  position  which  maintains  the  exclusive 
and  obligatory  claims  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Charge  II  is  as  follows  :  th^Churc^ 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the 
Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  the  Church 
is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which,  apart  from  the 
Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men  ; 
which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary  and  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.” 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  27. 
t  Inaugural  Address,  p.  26. 
%  Inaugural  Address,  p.  27. 


20 


With  regard  to  the  statement  that  the  Church  is  a 
source  of  divine  authority,  it  is  difficult  to  gain  a 
clear  idea,  but  what  was  said  with  regard  to  the 
Reason  is  in  some  particulars  applicable  to  the  Church. 
We  are  told  that  the  Church  is  both  a  source  *  and  a 
seat  of  divine  f  authority.  Now,  it  is  not  contrary  to 
either  Scripture  or  the  Confession  to  regard  the  Church 
as  being  subject  to  divine  influence.  But  it  is  contrary 
both  to  Scripture  and  to  the  Standards  of  our  Church  to 
speak  of  it  as  a  source  of  divine  authority.  The  illustra¬ 
tion  given  by  Professor  Briggs  is  sufficient  to  show  the 
error  of  his  doctrine.  It  is  said  that  Newman  could 
not  find  God  through  the  Bible.  Now,  if  we  assume 
that  in  so  far  as  the  teaching  of  the  Church  of  Rome  is 
true,  it  is  the  teaching  of  the  Word  of  God,  there  is 
nothing  contra-confessional  in  the  statement  that  many 
pious  souls  have  found  God  through  the  Church.  Prof. 
Briggs  asks  i  u  But  what  shall  we  say  of  a  modern  like 
Newman,  who  could  not  reach  certainty,  striving  never 
so  hard,  through  the  Bible  or  the  Reason,  but  who  did 
find  authority  in  the  institutions  of  the  Church  ? 

An  answer  is  to  be  found  in  Newman’s  own  writings. 

I  quote  from  his  Apologia: 

u  I  was  brought  up  from  a  child  to  take  great  delight 
in  reading  the  Bible  \  but  I  had  formed  no  religious 
convictions  till  I  was  fifteen.  Of  course  I  had  a  perfect 
knowledge  of  my  catechism.”  ^ 

Again  he  says : 

4‘  When  I  was  fifteen  (in  the  autumn  of  1816)  a  great 
change  of  thought  took  place  in  me.  I  fell  under  the 
influences  of  a  definite  creed,  and  received  into  my 
intellect  impressions  of  dogma,  which,  through  God’s 
mercy,  have  never  been  effaced  or  obscured.  Above 
and  beyond  the  conversations  and  sermons  of  the 
excellent  man,  long  dead,  the  Rev.  Walter  Mayeis,  of 
Pembroke  College,  Oxford,  who  was  the  human  means 
of  this  beginning  of  divine  faith  in  me,  was  the  effect  of 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  24. 
f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  26. 

|  Apologia  pro  vita  sua,  p.  I. 


21 


the  books  which  he  put  into  my  hands,  all  of  the  school 
of  Calvin.”* 

In  view  of  these  statements,  no  Presbyterian  can 
affirm  that  it  was  through  the  Church  that  Newman 
found  divine  authority.  If  so,  then  so  far  from  the 
Bible  being  the  only  rule  of  faith,  it  is  an  insufficient  and 
inefficient  rule  of  faith.  If  so,  then  what  Newman  found 
in  the  Church,  he  had  not  found  in  the  Bible  ;  and  what 
he  found  in  the  Church  being  apart  from  the  Bible,  or 
in  addition  to  the  Bible,  one  must  conclude  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  were  not  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  which  Prof.  Briggs  has  mantained  by  this 
illustration;  and  by  his  conclusion  he  has  contradicted 
the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Let  me  es¬ 
pecially  direct  your  attention  to  what  this  Word  of  God 
is  held  to  be  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Stand¬ 
ards.  In  presenting  in  evidence  the  answer  to  the 
second  question  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  Prof.  Briggs 
seemed  to  me  to  lay  especial  emphasis  upon  the  word 
“  contained ,”  as  if  the  terms  Word  of  God  and  the 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  were  not  co¬ 
extensive  terms.  Is  it  true  that  the  Word  of  God  is 
contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testa¬ 
ment,  or  that  the  Word  of  God  is  the  Old  and  New 
Testament  Scriptures?  According  to  the  Catechism, 
the  Word  of  God  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  ;  and  in 
the  light  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  it  may  be  seen  what 
is  meant  by  this.  It  is  not  the  greater  containing  the 
lesser.  The  Confession  of  Faith  (chap,  i.,  sec.  ii.)  says  : 
“Under  the  name  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  Word  of 
God  written,  are  now  contained  all  the  books  of  the 
Old  and  New  Testament,  which  are  these”:  then  fol¬ 
lows  the  list  of  books.  If  the  Word  of  God  is  contained 
in  these  Scriptures,  and  these  Scriptures  are  contained 
in  the  Word  of  God,  how  are  we  to  explain  the  differ¬ 
ence  of  statement  except  upon  the  ground  that  the 
terms  are  co-extensive  ? 

Of  course,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed  that  when  a 
Church  teaches  what  is  contrary  to  Scripture,  it  is 


*  Apologia  pro  vita  sua,  p.  4. 


22 


teaching  what  rests  on  divine  authority.  Institutional 
Christianity,  in  so  far  as  it  is  founded  on  divine 
authority,  is  founded  on  the W ord  of  God.  It  may  be  held 
that  there  is  an  Ecclesia  Docens ,  but  the  Church  can  only 
teach  what  it  has  already  learned.  The  moment  we 
admit  that  the  Church  can  teach  what  it  has  not  learned 
from  the  Word  of  God,  which  is  the  only  infallible  rule 
of  faith  and  practice,  we  abandon  the  doctrine  of  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice  contained  in  the  Confession. 

It  is  true  that  in  the  appendix  to  the  second  edition 
to  the  Inaugural  Address,  Professor  Briggs  explains  the 
doctrine  upon  which  I  have  been  commenting,  by  show¬ 
ing  that,  according  to  the  Confession,  the  Church  has 
divine  authority,  in  such  a  sense  that  God  is  present  in 
His  Church,  rendering  the  sacraments  efficacious,  and 
endowing  His  ministers  with  authority.*  But  this  is 
not  to  say  that  the  Church  is  a  source  of  divine 
authority,  but  only  that  it  is  subject  to  divine  influence. 
The  declaration  of  the  Inaugural  Address  was  that  the 
Church  is  a  source  of  divine  authority,  in  such  a  sense 
that  Newman,  who  could  not  find  God  through  the 
Bible,  was  able  to  find  Him  through  the  Church.”  f 

There  are  not  three  sources  of  divine  authority. 
There  is  only  one.  It  is  not  the  doctrine  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church,  it  is  a  contradiction  of  Presbyterian 
doctrine,  not  to  say  of  Christian  doctrine,  to  assert,  as 
Professor  Briggs  asserts,  that  it  is  a  matter  of  tempera¬ 
ment  or  environment  which  way  of  access  to  God  men 
may  pursue.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures, 
as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  the  Confession,  that  there  is  but 
one  way  of  access  to  God ;  that  the  way  to  God  is  not 
dependent  on  the  subjective  conditions  of  the  believer, 
but  on  an  objective,  obligatory,  exclusive  authority,  and 
that  this  authority  is  not  three-fold,  but  one. 

Charge  III.  is  as  follows: 

“The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 


*  Inaugural  Address,  second  edition,  appendix,  p.  87. 
f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  25. 


23 


being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  errors 
may  have  existed  in  the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  as  it  came  from  its  authors,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scripture  and 
in  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  written,  immediately 
inspired,  and  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

But  Professor  Briggs  has  not  only  denied  the  exclu¬ 
siveness  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  as  a  divine  authority,  he 
has  denied  their  infallibility.*  By  this  is  not  meant  that 
he  pronounces  all  the  history,  all  the  doctrine,  and  all 
the  devotional  parts  of  the  Scripture  to  be  untrue  or 
founded  on  untruth.  On  the  contrary,  while  he  is  unwill¬ 
ing  to  accept  the  Bible  as  altogether  accurate  in  its 
history,  he  is  ready  to  admit  its  infallibility  as  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  as  that  which  should  guide  our 
religious  thinking,  our  devotions  and  our  lives. 

If  this  be  admitted,  and  we  presume  that  this  is  what 
Professor  Briggs  means,  it  then  becomes  a  fair  question, 
What  shall  be  said  of  discrepancies  and  errors  which, 
as  he  says,  “  Historical  Criticism  ”  finds  in  the  Holy 
Scriptures  ?  f 

On  looking  at  the  doctrine  of  a  three-fold  divine  au¬ 
thority,  one  has  no  difficulty  in  seeing  that  Professor 
Briggs’s  inferences  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture 
are  largely  dependent  upon  the  principle  that  the  Reason 
is  co-ordinate  with  the  Bible,  if  not  superior  to  it,  as  an 
authority  in  religion.  And  here  I  would  set  forth  two 
propositions  as  disclaimers,  in  order  that  the  construc¬ 
tion  of  the  Professor’s  words  may  be  as  liberal  as  pos¬ 
sible. 


i .  In  the  first  place,  it  is  not  claimed  that  any  particular  Inspiration, 
theory  of  the  mode  of  inspiration  is  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  or  in  the  Confession  of  Faith.  The  Scrip¬ 
ture,  in  various  places,  does  teach  that  the  Scripture 
is  inspired — that  is,  it  claims  inspiration  for  itself  J — 


*  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  34,  35. 
t  Inaugural  Address,  p.  34. 

|  2  Tim.  3,  16. 


24 


and  the  Confession  declares  it  to  be  the  Word  of  God, 
and  to  be  immediately  inspired  by  God.*  As  to  the  pre¬ 
cise  nature  of  that  inspiration,  it  is  silent.  It  is  said  that 
holy  men  of  old  “  spake  as  they  were  moved,”  but  there 
is  nothing  heretical  in  denying  the  verbal  inspiration  of 
the  Scriptures.  Is  there,  then,  any  place  where  the  line 
can  be  drawn  between  a  theory  which  denies  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  Scripture  and  one  which  minimizes  inspira¬ 
tion  but  yet  admits  the  fact  of  inspiration  ?  I  believe 
that  there  is  ;  and  making  the  most  liberal  allowance  for 
the  diversity  of  views  among  theologians  as  to  the 
mode  of  inspiration,  I  believe  that  it  can  be  shown  that 
when  such  a  line  as  I  have  indicated  is  drawn,  it  will 
be  found  that  the  theory  maintained  by  Professor 
Briggs  is  irreconcilably  opposed  to  the  doctrine  of  in¬ 
spiration,  as  it  is  set  forth  in  the  Word  of  God  and  in  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

It  is  possible  to  employ  words  which  have  a  recog¬ 
nized  meaning,  and  at  the  same  time  so  to  pervert  that 
meaning  as  virtually  to  rob  them  of  their  real  signifi¬ 
cance.  An  Arian  or  a  Sabellian,  for  example,  may  talk 
about  the  Triune  God  without  recognizing  the  tri-per¬ 
sonality  of  the  Godhead,  or  the  Unity  of  the  three  Per¬ 
sons.  A  Socinian  may  talk  about  the  divinity  of  our  Lord 
while  denying  His  eternity  and  equality  with  the  Father. 
A  man  may  teach  that  missionaries  should  be  sent  to 
the  heathen  in  order  that  the  heathen  may  be  saved,  and 
yet  deny  that  the  heathen  without  missionaries  will  be 
lost.  In  the  same  way,  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  speak  of 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  and  yet  to  rob  inspira¬ 
tion  of  its  meaning.  Now,  whatever  Professor  Briggs’s 
theory  of  inspiration  may  or  may  not  be,  it  is  not  suffi¬ 
cient  to  show  that  it  is  lamentably  defective,  or  logically 
absurd,  or  possibly  dangerous  in  its  applications.  It 
may  have  all  these  characteristics  and  yet  be  perfectly 
admissible  within  the  liberty  of  the  Standards.  We  do 
not  try  men  for  being  bad  logicians.  It  might  be  shown 


*  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  I.,  Sec.  2,  and  Proof  Texts  cited. 


25 

that  Professor  Briggs’s  theory  of  inspiration  is  indefensi¬ 
ble  from  either  a  philosophical  or  a  religious  point  of 
view.  And  it  will  be  shown  from  Professor  Briggs’s 
own  words  that  it  involves  consequences  of  the  most 
serious  kind.  We  are  told  that  the  inspiration  is 
not  in  the  language,  nor  in  the  style,  nor  in  the  sen¬ 
tences  or  clauses,  but  that  it  is  in  the  concept.*  It 
may  be  claimed,  that  such  a  statement,  however  unin¬ 
telligible  it  may  be,  is  capable  of  a  two-fold  interpre¬ 
tation,  and  is  not  necessarily  heretical.f 

But  suppose  it  can  be  shown,  not  that  it  is  capable  of 
an  heretical  explanation,  but  that  Professor  Briggs  uses 
it  to  support  an  heretical  assertion,  then  I  assume  that  it 
must  be  taken  into  consideration  in  judging  of  the 
orthodoxy  of  his  utterances.  That  is  to  say,  a  man  may 
lay  down  premises  from  which  an  heretical  conclusion 
can  be  drawn — in  another  place  the  heretical  conclusion 
may  be  stated.  The  premises  may  not  of  themselves  be 
heretical,  but  are  capable  of  an  heretical  interpretation. 
The  author  cannot  be  judged  by  such  premises  alone, 
but  if  it  can  be  shown  that  he  himself  has  been  led  into 
heresy  from  the  premises  which  he  has  already  laid 
down,  then  I  claim  that  the  premises  may  be  judged  as 
well  as  the  conclusion. 

If,  then,  it  can  be  shown  that  Professor  Briggs’s  doc¬ 
trine  of  inspiration  admits  of  heretical  deductions  being 
drawn  from  it,  and  if  it  can  be  shown  that  he  himself 
makes  such  deductions  from  it,  I  claim  that  the  grounds 
of  the  deduction,  as  well  as  the  deduction,  demand  the 
judicial  consideration  of  the  Presbytery.  If  it  is  heresy 
to  contradict  the  truthfulness  of  Scripture,  and  if  a  cer¬ 
tain  doctrine  is  contradictory  in  its  implication  of  the 
truthfulness  of  Scripture,  and  if  Professor  Briggs  asserts 
that  the  Scriptures  are  untruthful  in  any  respect,  then 
it  is  fair  to  assume  that  his  theory  of  the  untruthfulness 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  31. 

t  Craighead  Case,  General  Assembly  Minutes,  1824,  p.  122;  Moore’s 
Digest,  p.  224. 


26 

of  Scripture  is  connected  with  his  theory  of  inspira¬ 
tion. 

What  is  the  natural  inference  from  the  proposition 
that  the  inspiration  of  the  Bible  is  the  inspiration  of  the 
concept,  not  of  the  words ;  that  there  is  nothing  divine 
in  the  sentences?  The  only  way  in  which  a  truth  can 
be  stated  is  in  a  proposition  expressed  or  implied.  And 
all  propositions  are  sentences.  A  concept  may  suggest 
a  truth,  but  it  cannot  express  it.  The  consequence  is 
that  if  it  is  only  the  concept  which  is  inspired,  the  truth 
is  not  inspired. 

In  addition  to  this,  if  the  concept  alone  is  inspired,  then 
the  authors  of  Scripture  had  inspiration,  but  there  is  none 
left  for  us,  unless  indeed  the  inspired  concept  was  ex¬ 
pressed  in  language.  If  it  was,  then  there  is  something 
divine  in  the  words  and  the  sentences.  But  suppose  it 
to  be  said,  and  it  doubtless  will  be  said,  Professor 
Briggs  is  not  a  logician  and  he  may  not  have  meant  to 
say  what  you  attribute  to  him.  Very  well.  What  did 
he  mean  ?  If  the  concept  of  a  narrative,  using  Profes¬ 
sor  Briggs’s  philosophical  phraseology,  is  inspired  and 
the  writer  commits  that  concept  to  language,  then  the 
narrative  is  true,  or  else  it  is  not  inspired.  When  the 
writer  commits  a  concept  of  doctrine  to  language  the 
doctrine  is  divine  or  it  is  not  inspired.  If  that  were 
Professor  Briggs’s  view  of  inspiration,  some  of  us  might 
find  fault  with  it,  but  that  would  be  our  affair,  not  the 
affair  of  any  church  judicatory.  That  is  why  I  say  that 
his  doctrine  of  the  inspired  concept,  although  it  may  be 
unintelligible,  may  possibly  not  be  called  heretical.  But 
if  the  words  of  Scripture  are  not  inerrant,  then  the  con¬ 
cept  of  the  words  of  Scripture,  cannot  be  said  to  be  in¬ 
spired.  An  inspiration  that  misleads  is  worse  than  no 
inspiration  at  all,  for  then  without  a  misleading  inspira¬ 
tion,  a  man  might  either  remain  silent  or  make  a  suc¬ 
cessful  guess  at  the  truth.  I  will  not  insist  upon  it  as 
an  essential  part  of  this  charge,  but  I  do  suggest  it, 
that  Professor  Briggs’s  doctrine  of  inspiration  is  clearly 
a  part  of  his  doctrine  as  to  the  truthfulness  of  the  Holy 
Scriptures. 


2/ 


2.  In  considering  the  doctrine  of  Inerrancy,  which  Inerrancy, 
is  denied  by  Professor  Briggs  and  which  he  regards  as 
one  of  the  barriers  which  keep  men  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  it  is  necessary  to  repudiate  the  proposition 
that  one  proved  error  destroys  the  authority  of  the 
Scriptures.  Certainly  it  destroys  the  entire  infallibility 
of  the  Bible.  If  a  man  break  a  mirror  at  one  corner, 
the  mirror  is  broken.  He  may  be  able  to  see  his  face 
in  another  part,  but  the  mirror  is  no  longer  unbroken. 

The  columns  of  the  Parthenon  may  be  white,  but  if  there 
is  a  speck  on  them  they  cannot  be  said  to  be  without 
spot.  And  so  if  there  be  a  proved  error  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  the  Scriptures,  not  being  inerrant,  are  not  infallible, 
although  they  do  not  lose  their  authority,  any  more  than 
the  entire  mirror  becomes  opaque  because  it  happens 
to  be  cracked  in  the  corner,  or  the  pillar  of  the  Par¬ 
thenon  becomes  black  by  the  spot  being  on  it.  When 
I  say  that  a  document  is  infallible,  I  mean  that  it  is  with¬ 
out  error,  so  that  if  I  claim  that  I  have  found  an  error, 
unless  I  can  give  up  the  error,  I  must  in  so  far  give  up  the 
infallibility  of  the  document.  That  is  very  different  from 
saying  that  the  whole  of  the  document  is  untrue.  In¬ 
asmuch  as  it  has  been  shown  that  Prof.  Briggs  has  not 
retracted  or  disavowed  any  of  the  teaching  contained 
in  the  Inaugural  Address,  I  shall  now  read  a  passage 
which  cannot  be  construed  as  being  consistent  with  the 
essential  doctrine  of  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture. 

It  is  in  contradiction  to  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility 
of  that  part  of  Holy  Scripture  which  is  known  as  pre¬ 
dictive  prophecy.  Prof.  Briggs  has  said:  “Kuenen 
has  shown  that  if  we  insist  upon  the  fulfillment  of  the 
details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testament, 
many  of  the  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history ; 
and  the  great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction  has  not 
only  never  been  fulfilled,  but  cannot  now  be  fulfilled, 
for  the  reason  that  its  own  time  has  passed  forever.”* 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  38. 


28 


It  is  to  the  statement  of  Prof.  Briggs,  not  to  the  cita¬ 
tion  of  Kuenen,  to  which  I  now  call  attention,  especially 
as  this  is  illustrated  in  detail  by  reference  to  the  prophet 
Jonah.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  passage  just  quoted 
is  quite  inconsistent  with  belief  in  the  truthfulness  of 
Scripture.  An  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  cannot 
readily  be  conceived  of  as  containing  false  prophecy. 
It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Scriptures  that  all  Messianic 
prophecy  will  be  fulfilled.  I  am  aware  that  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  fulfillment  of  prophecy  is  very  difficult, 
and  there  is  a  danger  of  being  too  ready  to  find  minute 
predictions  fulfilled  in  events  which  can  only  be  extrav¬ 
agantly  assumed  to  be  included  in  the  inspired  mind 
of  the  prophet.  If  Professor  Briggs  had  simply  said, 
“  There  are  many  predictions  made  by  the  prophets 
which  we  cannot  understand,  which  refer  to  events  of 
which  we  are  ignorant,”  I  take  it,  that  he  would  be  in 
harmony  with  the  Scriptures,  and  would  be  supported 
by  Christian  scholars.  But  there  are  two  points  es¬ 
pecially  in  Professor  Briggs’s  theory  which  are  in  di¬ 
rect  conflict  with  the  assertions  of  all  Scripture,  and  in 
particular  are  in  direct  contradiction  to  the  words  of 
Christ. 

Here  once  more  we  are  forced  into  the  apparently 
illogical  position  of  using  Scripture  as  an  argument 
against  one  who  denies  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture. 
But  as  it  is  the  principle  of  our  Church,  that  the 
Holy  Scriptures  are  infallible,  the  argument  must 
appeal  to  all  those  who  have  not  lost  their  confidence 
in  the  Word  of  God. 

Let  me  first  call  your  attention  to  what  Professor 
Briggs  says  with  respect  to  Messianic  prophecy.  His 
position  is  not  that  of  the  extreme  rationalists  who 
look  upon  prophecy  as  simply  teaching  after  the  event. 
He  still  holds  to  predictive  prophecy,  but  he  says,  of 
Messianic  prophecy,  that  a  large  part  of  it  not  only 
has  not  been  fulfilled,  but  that  from  the  nature  of  the 
case  it  can  never  be  fulfilled. 


29 

Two  suppositions  are  here  open  to  us  in  interpreting 
the  author’s  meaning. 

1.  We  may  suppose  that  the  prophecies  are  inspired 
prophecies. 

2.  We  may  suppose  that  the  prophecies  are  unin¬ 
spired  prophecies. 

We  have  a  right  to  conclude  from  Professor  Briggs’s 
reference  to  Jonah,*  that  his  doctrine  is  that  even 
an  inspired  prophecy  may  fail  of  fulfillment,  because 
God  may  recall  His  decree.  Now,  this  idea  that 
a  prophet  may  be  inspired  to  make  a  false  prophecy 
is  repugnant  to  the  scriptural  idea  of  God,  who  is 
represented  as  a  God  who  cannot  lie ;  but,  as  Professor 
Briggs  expresses  it,  it  is  possible  that  “  God  may  recall 
His  decree.”  A  reference  to  Scripture  is  sufficient 
to  show  how  utterly  contradictory  to  the  Bible  such  a 
doctrine  of  God’s  inspiration,  of  God’s  nature  and  Word 
is.  But,  in  order  to  bring  scriptural  proof  in  support 
of  the  assertion,  Professor  Briggs  refers  to  the  case  of 
Jonah. 

I  shall  not  be  so  presumptuous  as  to  attempt  to  in¬ 
struct  the  theologians  of  this  Presbytery  in  regard  to 
the  meaning  of  the  familiar  narrative  of  the  Book  of 
Jonah,  but  shall  content  myself  with  quoting  from  a 
work  of  a  friend  of  Professor  Briggs  in  which  the  matter 
is  discussed  upon  what  I  take  to  be  sound  exegetical 
principles.  Dr.  Morris  writes:  “To  quote  the  min¬ 
atory  declaration  of  God  against  Nineveh,  taken  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  subsequent  repentance  of  the  people 
and  the  consequent  change  in  the  divine  dealing  with 
them,  as  an  instance  of  unfulfilled  prediction,  certainly 
involves  a  grave  misapprehension  of  the  nature  and 
function  of  prophecy.  To  draw  from  this  and  similar 
instances  in  the  Old  Testament,  where  conditional  judg¬ 
ments  are  threatened  but  afterwards  withheld,  the  in¬ 
ference  that  many  divine  predictions  have  been  reversed 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  38. 


30 

by  history,  is  a  still  more  serious  mistake.”*  But  is  it 
not  something  more  than  a  mistake,  is  it  not  to  impeach 
the  divine  truthfulness  ? 

Especially  is  this  the  case  when  we  turn  to  the 
words  of  Jesus  Christ  with  respect  to  the  prophecies 
concerning  Himself.  We  have  not  walked  with  Him 
on  that  road  to  Emmaus  and  so  are  constantly  making 
mistakes,  seeing  fulfillment  of  prophecies  at  wrong 
times  and  under  wrong  circumstances,  or  failing  to  see 
fulfillment  when  the  event  is  in  history. 

But  whether  it  be  scholastic  or  whether  it  be  criti¬ 
cal — to  deny  the  fulfillment  of  the  divine  prediction  is 
to  deny  that  the  prophecy  is  true,  for  it  must  be 
either  true  or  false.  To  deny  the  fulfillment  of  proph¬ 
ecy  is  to  deny  that  God  is  faithful  to  His  promises  or 
His  declarations  of  judgment.  It  is  to  deny  that  God 
is  a  God  of  Truth,  f 

Well,  then,  suppose  we  admit  that  the  inspiration  ex¬ 
tends  to,  and  the  inerrancy  covers,  only  that  part  of  the 
teaching  which  has  to  do  with  faith,  and  practice,  with 
“the  teaching  that  guides  our  devotions,  our  thinking, 
and  our  conduct.”;}:  Suppose  that,  following  Professor 
Briggs’s  suggestion,  we  distinguish  one  part  of  the 
Bible  from  another  part.  Suppose  we  say  the  narra¬ 
tive  is  a  chronicle  more  or  less  errant,  more  or  less  fabu¬ 
lous,  but  we  still  have  those  great  ideas  which  lie  at 
the  foundation  of  our  holy  religion :  God  has  given  us 
a  Word  which  is  to  be  our  guide  with  respect  to  con¬ 
duct  and  life  only,  but  He  has  left  men  free  to  make 
erroneous  statements  about  history,  and  we  must  put  the 
Word  into  the  crucible  of  the  Reason,  and  admit  only 
that  to  be  true  which  is  in  conformity  to  the  Reason. 
In  that  case  it  must  be  asked  whether  the  Bible  can  be 
a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 


*  A  Calm  Review,  etc.,  Prof.  E.  D.  Morris,  p.  32. 

■f-  Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  1.,  Sec.  II.,  and  Proof  Texts  cited. 
Larger  Catechism,  Q.  7,  and  Proof  Texts  cited.  Shorter  Catechism, Q.  4, 
and  Proof  Texts  cited. 

|  Inaugural  Address,  p.  36. 


3i 


practice,  if  its  infallibility  does  not  extend  to  its  state¬ 
ments  of  fact  as  well  as  to  its  presentation  of  doctrine. 
Can  the  narrative  be  divorced  from  the  doctrine  so 
that  we  may  say  of  the  one  that  it  is  fallible,  and  of  the 
other  that  it  is  infallible,  that  it  is  inerrant  ?  I  submit 
that  the  separation  is  impossible.  Both  narrative  and 
faith  are  knit  together.  We  have  not  followed 
cunningly  devised  fables,  but  holy  men  of  old  spake 
as  they  were  moved  by  the  Holy  Ghost.  The 
ground  of  your  objection  to  the  historical  narrative 
will  be  a  rational  principle,  a  principle  of  the  human 
reason.  Where  then  do  you  draw  the  line  between 
what  is  in  accordance  with  human  reason  and  what  is 
not?  Is  rational  philosophy  founded  on  principles  so 
infallible  that  it  will  accept  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  reject  the  miracle  of  Jonah,  upon  which 
Jesus  Christ  set  the  seal  of  His  authority,  and  which  He 
used  as  an  illustration  of  His  triumph  over  death?  Shall 
we  accept  St.  Paul's  doctrine  of  the  second  Adam,  and 
regard  the  first  Adam  as  a  myth?  Or  will  you,  perhaps, 
go  farther  and  say  that  the  author  who  set  forth  a  doc¬ 
trine  which  is  binding  on  your  conscience  will  tell  you 
an  untruth  when  he  relates  events  ?  It  would  not  be  ex¬ 
pedient  to  tell  a  man  in  whom  the  processes  of  thought 
were  weak  that  if  he  rejected  the  facts  he  must  also  reject 
the  doctrines,  but  a  man  who  was  accustomed  to  reason 
would  see  that  if  he  rejected  the  facts  the  doctrines 
were  in  peril.  Now,  it  is  possible  for  a  man  to  take  the 
position  of  rejecting  the  facts,  but  if  the  facts  are  insep¬ 
arable  from  the  doctrines,  then  we  must  say  to  such 
a  man,  you  may  be  entitled  to  your  doctrine,  but  your 
doctrine  is  not  that  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

In  the  face  of  the  claim  that  there  are  errors  in 
the  Bible,  which  cannot  be  explained  away,*  and 
discrepancies  which  we  cannot  account  for,  assuming 
that  the  errors  exist  now,  we  find  ourselves  in  the  pres¬ 
ence  of  an  alternative,  either  all  that  the  Bible  says  of 
its  own  veracity,  all  that  Jesus  Christ,  the  prophets,  and 
the  apostles  say  of  the  Bible’s  veracity,  the  fact  that 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  35. 


32 


it  is  called  the  Holy  Scripture — the  Word  of  God — all 
these  great  reasons  for  believing  in  the  truthfulness  of 
the  Bible  must  be  set  aside  in  deference  to  the  results 
of  historical  criticism,  or  else  there  must  be  some  way 
of  explaining  this  discrepancy  between  the  Bible  as  we 
have  it  now,  and  the  Bible  of  which  these  sacred  author¬ 
ities  speak. 

One  way  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulty  is  to  accuse  the 
advocates  of  inerrancy  of  arguing  in  a  circle  because 
they  quote  Scripture  in  support  of  Scripture.  That  is 
all  very  well,  but  can  a  Presbyterian  do  that  without 
contradicting  the  doctrine  that  the  Bible  is  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ?  Another 
way  is  to  say  that  we  have  not  yet  light  enough 
to  decide  in  the  face  of  these  witnesses  among  the 
prophets  and  apostles,  that  the  Word  of  God  can  teach 
error.  Another  way  is  to  claim  that  as  these  inspired 
authorities  could  not  err,  the  original  manuscript  was 
inerrant.  Now,  that  may  be  laughed  at  as  an  a  priori 
argument.  It  is  singular  that  those  who  are  so  stringent 
in  their  efforts  to  exalt  the  human  reason  should  so  often 
decry  Logic,  and  that  those  who  tell  us  that  Logic 
should  be  kept  in  its  proper  place  should  introduce  an 
appeal  to  a  logical  principle  in  order  to  break  the  force 
of  the  statements  of  the  Word  of  God.  What  is  meant 
by  an  a  priori  argument?  There  are  two  ways  in  which 
that  term  is  used.  One  use  is  as  a  synonym  for  that 
which  is  necessary  and  fundamental.  In  this  sense,  a 
priori  truth  is  truth  which  cannot  be  thought  to  be 
untrue.  The  other  meaning  is,  that  a  priori  truth  is  that 
which  is  known  in  advance  of  direct  experience. 

In  the  latter  sense,  perhaps,  this  is  an  a  priori  argu¬ 
ment.  That  is,  it  is  asserted  in  advance  of  any  human 
criticism  that  if  Jesus  Christ,  the  Eternal  Son  of  God, 
and  His  inspired  apostles  have  affirmed  the  truthful¬ 
ness  of  the  Scriptures,  the  Scriptures  are  true.  But 
of  what  use  is  such  an  argument  to  those  who,  like 
Professor  Briggs,  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  Scripture  ? 
How  can  it  be  known  that  what  the  Scriptures  them¬ 
selves  say  of  themselves  is  true?  If  men  will  not  take 


33 

ci  brief  to  assail  the  entire  truthfulness  of  Scripture  *  it 
is  not  necessary  in  a  court  of  this  Church  to  take  a  brief 
to  convert  them  to  Presbyterian  doctrine ;  for  the  Word 
°  God  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

But  it  is  this  barrier  of  inerrancy, we  are  told,  that  keeps 
many  away  from  the  Bible.  +  That  is  to  say,  a  funda¬ 
mental  article  of  the  Presbyterian  faith,  the  doctrine  of 
authority,  is  what  keeps  so  many  men  away  from  the 

lble.  This  is  a  restless  age,  an  age  when  men  are 
demanding  an  authority  upon  which  they  may  rest 
securely  and  confidingly.  It  has  been  the  boast  of 
Christianity,  and  especially  the  boast  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church,  that  it  has  stood  in  the  midst  of  conflicting 
systems,  and  has  held  out  this  steady  lamp,  this  certain 

ight,  to  a  troubled  world,  this  unshaken  faith  in  the 
Word  of  Almighty  God. 

Charges  IV  and  V  are  as  follows  : 

Charge  IV. 

“The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  Authenticity 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs  DD  °£  the 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  Scriptures- 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Moses 
is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  is  contrary 
to  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the 
essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  Word 

°[  ^  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the 
infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the 
Scripture  itself.” 

Charge  V. 

“The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D. 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Isaiah 
is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name, 


Inaugural  Address,  second  ed.,  appendix,  p.  95, 

f  Inaugural  Address,  p.  34. 


34 

which  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards  o 
the  said  Church  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences 
itself  to  be  the  Word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  the 
parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of  interpretation 

of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.  . 

The  charges  which  I  shall  next  notice  are  those  which 
deal  with  Professor  Briggs’s .  doctrine  .of  authen¬ 
ticity.  I  do  not  see  that  in  this  trial  we  are 
called  upon  to  prove  that  the  Bible  and.  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith  are  in  the  right  in  this  respect. 
Whatever  arguments  may  be  employed  to  controvert 
the  scriptural  view  of  this  subject,  it  will  be  admitted 
by  large  numbers  of  scholars  that  the  conclusions 
reached  by  radical  criticism  are  not  so  certain  nor  so 
unanimous  as  to  warrant  the  Church  in  contradicting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Scripture  with  reference  to  the 
genuineness  of  some  books  of  the  Old  Testament,  and 
of  adopting  as  certain,  the  hypotheses  of  authorship 
and  redaction  which  the  ingenuity  of  eminent  scholars 
has  devised.  It  is,  of  course,  no  essential  part  of  our 
creed  to  have  right  views  as  to  the  authorship  of  the 
Book  of  Job,  for  example,  provided  that  it  is  admitted 
that  it  is  an  inspired  book.  The  evil  of  adopting  all  the 
conclusions  which  have  been  advanced  by  the  critics  of 
the  Bible  is  two-fold.  It  involves  doctrine  which  is 
anti-Christian,  and  it  involves  doctrine  which  is  anti- 
Presbyterian. 

Of  course,  the  claim  will  be  made  at  once  that  I  am  in 
no  position  to  judge  of  the  validity  of  the  conclusions  of 
modern  criticism.  It  will  be  urged  that  this  is  the  work 
of  experts  and  specialists.  We  have  been  told  by 
writers  repeatedly  during  the  past  y  ear  that  it  is  only 
the  unlearned,  the  willfully  ignorant,  the  men  who  are 
blinded  by  traditionalism,  that  create  the  opposition  to 
these  radical  views  as  to  authenticity.  Indeed,  if  I  am 
not  mistaken,  the  opinion  has  been  publicly  expressed 
by  a  minister  of  our  Church,  that  the  majority  of  the 
Presbyterian  clergy  are  incompetent  to  say  whether  the 
doctrines  advanced  by  the  radical  critics  are  well- 


35 

founded  or  not.  I  am  not  ready  to  admit  this  state¬ 
ment  in  so  far  as  the  Presbyterian  clergy  are  concerned, 
but  in  my  own  case  I  admit  it  freely. 

I  do  not  undertake  to  commit  the  folly  of  claiming 
any  special  learning  regarding  the  literature  of  the 
Bible,  but  one  might  wish  that  many  of  those  who  find 
fault  with  the  ignorance  of  their  brethren  on  these  sub¬ 
jects  were  themselves  a  little  more  learned  in  logic,  in 
Presbyterian  law,  and  in  the  plain  and  simple  statements 
of  Holy  Scripture.  Is  it  not  clear  that  a  man  to  whom  an 
appeal  to  the  authority  of  Scripture  or  to  the  Confes¬ 
sional  doctrine  is  made  in  vain,  is  no  longer  a  Presbyte¬ 
rian  ?  and  that  if  he  objects  to  theological  questions  being 
settled  on  that  ground,  his  objection  is  ipso  facto  heresy  ? 

A  polemical  argument  presented  by  one  party  in  the 
Church  to  another  party  in  the  Church  assumes  that  the 
Bible  and  the  Standards  of  the  Church  are  the  final  au¬ 
thority.  There  is  another  kind  of  argument,  which 
may  be  called  apologetical,  which  is  addressed  to  those 
who  do  not  hold  to  the  same  Standards  with  ourselves. 

Is  it  not  plain,  that  unless  an  appeal  to  the  Standards  of 
the  Church  is  final,  the  opposing  party  is,  by  the  very 
terms  of  the  controversy,  no  longer  Presbyterian  ?  And 
so,  if  a  clergyman  comes  to  me  and  tells  me  that  the 
Scriptural  and  the  Confessional  doctrine  as  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  Bible  is  wrong,  without  being  a 
specialist  in  oriental  studies,  I  am  compelled  to  say  to 
him  that  he  is  teaching  what  is  heretical. 

Now,  from  a  legal  point  of  view,  the  Presbyterian  The  standards 
Church  is  an  organization,  the  Standards  of  which  are  its  °urConstitu- 
Constitution.*  Let  us  take  a  somewhat  analogous  case. 

Suppose  that  a  society  were  to  be  formed  to  follow  the 
teachings  of  Plato.  Suppose  that  the  society  by  an 
adopting  act  were  to  declare  that  they  would  be  guided 
absolutely  by  the  writings  of  Plato,  and  that  as  a  condi¬ 
tion  of  belonging  to  that  society,  a  man  must  subscribe 
to  the  society’s  interpretation  of  Plato.  The  question, 
in  the  first  instance,  would  be  to  determine  what  the 
writings  of  Plato  were.  Suppose  that  it  should  be 

*  Minutes  General  Assembly,  1788,  p.  546.  Moore’s  Digest,  p.  51. 


36 

adopted  as  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  this  society, 
that  the  ancient  canon  of  the  Platonic  writings 
should  be  taken  to  be  obligatory.  One  can  conceive 
of  a  Platonic  critic  of  the  nineteenth  century  saying  to 
the  members  of  the  society :  “  Do  you  not  know  that 
Plato  did  not  write  all  the  books  which  you  attribute 
to  him  ?  ”  One  critic  might  hold  that  the  Laws  were 
spurious,  another  might  wish  to  throw  out  the  Parmeni¬ 
des ,  but,  whatever  the  force  of  their  arguments,  a  man 
who  should  abandon  the  position  of  the  society  with 
regard  to  the  Platonic  canon  would  no  longer  have  any 
reason  for  subscribing  to  its  constitution.  Well,  but 
one  may  answer,  the  object  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
is  not  to  vindicate  a  certain  view  of  Hebrew  literature. 
Granted  that  it  is  generally  believed  that  Moses  did 
write  the  Pentateuch,  and  that  David  did  write  most  of 
the  Psalms,  such  positions  are  no  part  of  the  essence  of 
the  Presbyterian  faith. 

It  is  just  here  that  the  New  Testament  is  the  arbiter. 
It  is  just  here  that  the  Confession  of  Faith  is  obliga¬ 
tory.  If  we  believe  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch, 
for  example,  and  radical  criticism  urges  that  we  are 
wrong,  we  do  not  oppose  their  contention  simply  be¬ 
cause  we  regard  their  position  as  due  to  a  mere  literary 
error,  to  a  mistake  in  reasoning.  We  oppose  it  on  the 
authority  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  are  called  upon  to  pro¬ 
nounce  our  decision  concerning  a  plausible  hypothesis, 
on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Word  of  Christ  on  the  other. 
You  cannot,  according  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church,  choose  from  among  the  sayings  of  the 
Bible  what  you  will  or  will  not  believe.  For  it  is  the 
only  “  infallible  rule  of  faith.”  You  cannot  choose  from 
among  the  sayings  of  our  Lord  what  you  will  believe 
and  what  you  will  reject,  for  He  is  the  Way  and  the 
Truth  and  the  Life.  It  is  not  an  article  of  our  creed 
that  the  Son  of  God,  in  His  humiliation  upon  earth,  was 
omniscient.  But  it  is  an  article  of  our  faith  that  He  was 
infallible.  But  it  will  be  said  that  this  is  an  a  priori 
argument.  Well,  did  not  our  Lord  use  an  a  priori  argu- 


37 

ment  in  enforcing  the  claims  of  His  own  doctrine  ?  He, 
indeed,  put  the  premises  and  conclusion  in  a  different 
order  from  the  one  which  I  have  just  followed.  He  did 
not  sa},  If  ye  believe  my  words,  ye  shall  believe  the 
writings  of  Moses,  but  He  did  say,  “  If  ye  believe  not 
his  writings,  how  shall  ye  believe  my  words?”* 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  doctrines  of  Professor 
with  respect  to  Holy  Scripture  are  irreconcil¬ 
able  with  the  teaching  of  Scripture  and  of  the  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith. 

Even  admitting  (which  I  do  not  admit  fora  moment), 
that  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Reason 
is  not  per  se  heretical,  and  that  Professor  Briggs’s  real 
meaning  is  very  different  from  that  which  his  words 
convey ;  even  admitting  that  his  doctrine  of  Inspiration 
is  not  per  se  heretical,  and  that  his  meaning  has  been  en¬ 
tirely  mistaken,  even  admitting  that  his  statements  with 
respect  to  inerrancy  and  prophecy  are  not  explicitly 
heretical;  even  admitting  that  judged  by  any  one  of 
these  doctrines,  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  regard  his 
opinion  and  position  as  seriously  heretical  (none  of 
which  admissions  I  am  prepared  to  make),  I  contend 
that  all  these  divergences  from  the  Confessional  and 
Scriptural  doctrine  are  so  related  that  one  is  not  en¬ 
titled  to  look  upon  them  as  accidental,  but  as  logically 
connected,  and  as  forming  a  systematic  error  which 
strikes  at  the  first  principles  of  the  Scriptures  as  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

Charge  VI  is  as  follows : 

Charge  VI. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of 
America  charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D., 
being  a  Minister  of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of 
the  Presbytery  of  New  York,  with  teaching  that  Sanc¬ 
tification  is  not  complete  at  death,  which  is  contrary  to 
the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the 


*  John  v.,  47. 


38 

Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness. 

The  sixth  charge  relates  to  the  state  of  the  soul 
after  death.  1  shall  attempt  to  show  that  Professor 
Briggs’s  doctrine  on  this  subject  is  contra-confessional 
because  it  affirms  the  theory  of  progressive  sanctifica¬ 
tion  after  death. 

Professor  Briggs  affirms  that  the  word  “  redemption 
includes  the  “  whole  process  of  grace.”  It  comprehends 
regeneration,  justification,  repentance,  faith,  sancti¬ 
fication  and  glorification.  Now,  the  real  meaning  of 
the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  cannot  be 
fully  understood  without  taking  into  consideration 
Professor  Briggs’s  doctrine  of  redemption,  of  which 
sanctification  is  a  part.* 

To  do  this,  we  must  first  notice  the  statement  made 
by  Professor  Briggs  with  respect  to  the  relation  of  elec¬ 
tion  to  redemption.  Now,  we  do  not  have  to  discuss 
the  question  of  the  divine  decrees  at  this  point.  It  is  not 
here  a  question  as  to  whether  the  Confession  and  the 
Scriptures  teach  Supra-lapsarianism,  or  the  contrary. 
It  is  not  here  a  question  as  to  the  nature  or  order  of  the 
divine  decrees.  It  is  rather  on  the  common  ground 
occupied  by  Calvinists  and  Arminians  that  objection 
to  this  view  of  redemption  is  brought.  It  is  not  whether 
election  is  founded  on  God’s  sovereign  will,  or  is  con¬ 
ditional  on  the  character  and  will  of  Man.  It  is  not  so 
much  a  question  as  to  the  purpose  of  God  as  it  is  a 
question  as  to  the  salvation  of  Man.  It  is  the  distinct 
specific  question  of  the  relation  of  redemption  to 
election,  and  therefore  the  relation  of  election  to  the 
salvation  of  the  race. 

Nor  is  the  issue  whether  or  not  the  atonement  is 
limited,  whether  Christ  died  for  all  men  or  for  the 
elect  only.  However  firm  our  belief  may  be  as  to 
either  the  one  or  the  other  of  these  alternatives,  a 
certain  latitude  of  interpretation  is  permitted,  and  it  is 
not  necessary  to  regard  either  of  these  alternatives  as 

*  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  52,  53.  Inaugural  Address,  second  edition, 

p.  IOO. 


39 


heretical.  Professor  Briggs  declares  that  Presbyterians 
have  too  often  limited  redemption  by  their  doctrine  of 
election  ;  and  that  the  Bible  knows  no  such  limitations.* 
But  if  election  does  not  limit  redemption,  it  follows  that 
there  may  be  redeemed  men  who  are  not  elect.  If 
redemption  were  used  by  Professor  Briggs  in  a  narrow 
sense,  to  describe  the  objective  work  effected  through 
the  incarnation  and  death  of  God  the  Son,  it  might  be 
said  :  This  is  nothing  more  than  the  denial  of  the  doc¬ 
trine  of  a  limited  atonement,  which  may  be  false,  but  is 
not  heretical.  That  is,  it  may  be  interpreted  as  meaning 
that  redemption  is  for  all  men,  whosoever  believeth  will 
be  saved.  In  that  sense  it  is  true  that  the  whole  race  is 
redeemed,  but  only  the  elect  have  their  sins  forgiven, 
their  pardon  pronounced.  Only  the  elect  are  sanctified 
and  glorified.  In  any  case,  it  would  be  doubtful 
whether  or  not  Professor  Briggs  meant  to  affirm  or 
deny  that  all  men  are  saved. 

But,  in  order  that  there  may  be  no  doubt  as  to  his 
meaning,  he  has  defined  redemption  in  such  a  way  as  to 
lay  himself  open  to  the  charge  of  teaching  the  salvation 
of  the  whole  race  of  men.  He  affirms  that  redemption 
includes  “  not  only  the  forgiveness  of  sins,”  but  deliver¬ 
ance  from  bodily  evil.  But  he  goes  farther ;  he  says, 
“  The  Redemption  of  the  Bible  comprehends  the  whole 
process  of  grace  ....  The  Bible  rises  above  the 
faults  of  modern  theology,  and  comprehends  in  its 
redemption  of  man,  his  justification,  sanctification  and 
glorification  ;  his  regeneration,  his  renovation  and  his 
transformation ;  his  faith,  repentance  and  holy  love.”f 
Then  those  who  are  not  elect  may  undergo  these 
gracious  changes,  and  have  these  gracious  benefits. 
Unless  such  is  the  case,  redemption  is  limited  by 
election,  which  Professor  Briggs  denies.  Even  if  we 
say  with  Arminians  that  God  elects  men  on  account  of 
their  faith,  or  on  account  of  their  works,  or  on  account 
of  their  faith  and  their  works,  we  cannot  affirm  that 
any  of  the  non-elect  are  redeemed.  And  if  we  should 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  55. 
t  Inaugural  Address,  pp.  52,  53. 


40 


say  that  redemption  means  only  the  possibility  of  sal¬ 
vation  held  out  to  the  whole  race  of  men,  if  we  accept 
Professor  Briggs’s  doctrine,  we  are  obliged  to  affirm  that 
this  possibility  becomes  a  certainty,  for  the  whole  race 
of  man  is  redeemed,  and  redemption  includes  regenera¬ 
tion,  justification,  sanctification  and  glorification.  From 
his  doctrine  of  redemption,  and  from  his  doctrine 
of  election,  he  draws  the  conclusion :  “  The  Bible  does 
not  teach  universal  salvation,  but  it  does  teach  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  the  world,  of  the  race  of  man.”  We 
cannot  object  to  this  statement,  if  it  means  that  a  very 
great  multitude  is  saved,  for  it  is  plainly  taught  in  the 
Bible  that  the  host  of  the  redeemed  will  be  very  great. 
But  when  we  are  told  that  the  salvation  of  the  world 
cannot  be  accomplished  by  the  selection  of  a  limited 
number  of  individuals  from  the  mass,  then  we  affirm 
that  it  means  nothing,  or  else  it  means  that  salvation  is 
the  selection  of  an  unlimited  number  from  the  mass. 
What  does  that  mean,  viewed  in  the  light  of  the  state¬ 
ment  that  redemption  is  not  limited  by  election  ? 

It  will  be  said  :  “You  cannot  charge  Professor  Briggs 
with  holding  the  doctrine  of  universalism,  for  he  dis¬ 
tinctly  says  that  the  Bible  does  not  teach  universal 
salvation.”  But,  as  I  understand  it,  the  heresy  of  uni¬ 
versalism  does  not  consist  essentially  in  the  statement 
that  all  men  are  saved.  Universalism  is  essentially 
heretical  because  of  its  statement  of  the  way  in  which 
men  are  saved.  It  is  the  premises  upon  which  univers¬ 
alism  is  founded,  not  the  conclusion  itself,  that  is 
essentially  heretical.  Professor  Briggs’s  doctrine  is 
capable  of  but  two  interpretations,  either  of  which  is 
heresy.  Either  he  teaches  that  the  non-elect  are  re¬ 
deemed,  which  would  be  heretical ;  or  he  teaches  that 
all  men  are  elect,  which  is  also  heretical. 

Now,  there  is  a  logical  connection  between  the 
doctrine  of  redemption  and  that  of  sanctification  after 
death. 

If  sanctification  is  regarded  as  a  part  of  redemption, 
and  if  it  be  held  that  a  part  of  the  work  of  redemption 


*  Inaugural  Address,  p.  55. 


4i 


goes  on  after  death,  there  is  no  difficulty  in  identifying 
the  process  after  death  with  a  process  of  redemption. 
We  are  not  told  by  Professor  Briggs  whether  the  other 
processes  of  redemption  are  or  are  not  carried  on  in  a 
future  state.  But  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  a  man 
who  believes  that  we  are  justified  by  faith,  and  who 
believes  that  a  man  must  be  justified  before  he  can  be 
said  to  be  glorified,  must  show  in  some  way  that  those 
who  are  redeemed,  but  who  have  never  believed  in  this 
world,  have  believed  to  their  justification.  Can  a  man 
who  has  not  believed  in  this  life,  be  justified  in  this  life  ? 
If  he  can,  then  the  Bible  and  the  Confession  of  Faith  are 
wrong  in  teaching  the  doctrine  of  justification  by  faith. 
If  he  cannot,  then  none  of  those  who  have  failed  to 
believe,  in  this  life,  can  be  justified,  unless  they  are 
justified  in  another  world.  It  is  logical  to  suppose  that 
when  Professor  Briggs  speaks  of  redemption  after 
death,  he  means  that  all  the  processes  of  grace  included 
in  the  term  redemption  may  take  place  in  the  other 
world. 

But  you  will  say,  Has  not  Professor  Briggs  said 
distinctly  in  the  answers  to  the  questions  put  to  him  by 
his  sympathetic  colleagues,  that  he  does  not  believe  in  a 
second  probation  after  death  ?*  Let  this  be  granted. 
But  does  he  believe  that  the  present  is  a  state  of 
probation  ?  It  may  be  that  the  state  of  first  probation 
is  past  and  that  all  probation  is  over.  Professor  Briggs 
has  taught  elsewheref  that  the  race  had  but  one  pro¬ 
bation,  and  that  was  the  probation  of  Adam  as  the  head 
of  the  race.  Of  course,  then,  he  does  not  believe  in  a 
second  probation.  Nor  was  it  necessary  for  him  to 
deny  a  belief  in  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory.  No  one  ever 
supposed  that  he  did  believe  in  Purgatory.  The  Roman 
Catholic  doctrine  of  Purgatory  has  but  little  in  common 
with  the  theory  of  Professor  Briggs,  although,  if  we 
were  choosing  between  the  two  doctrines,  we  might 
prefer  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  to  that  taught  by 


*  Vide  Questions  submitted  to  Prof.  Briggs  by  Directors  of  Union 
Seminary. 

f  Whither,  p.  217. 


42 


Professor  Briggs.  Let  us,  then,  dismiss  from  this  dis¬ 
cussion  for  the  present,  the  idea  that  Professor  Briggs 
has  uttered  universalistic  doctrine,  or  that  he  has  uttered 
the  doctrine  of  purgatory.  He  is  not  a  universalist 
because  he  affirms  that  some  men  will  be  lost.  It  might 
be  shown  that  his  principles  lead  logically  to  universal- 
ism,  but  as  he  has  stated  explicitly  that  the  hopelessly 
irredeemable,  sink  to  the  lowest  depths  in  the  Middle 
State,  he  must  have  the  benefit  of  the  doubt.  However 
obscure  Professor  Briggs’s  statements  may  seem  when 
he  treats  of  the  subject  of  redemption,  it  is  perfectly 
clear  that  he  believes,  or  expresses  his  belief,  in  sancti¬ 
fication  as  a  process  being  continued  after  death.  He 
denies  immediate  sanctification  after  death,  and  repudi¬ 
ates  the  idea  that  there  is  magical  transformation  in 
the  dying  hour.  On  this  point  the  standards  of  the 
Church  teach  a  directly  contradictory  doctrine,  the 
Shorter  Catechism  being  especially  strong,*  using 
first  the  expression  “  at  ”  their  death,  and  second, 
the  word  “  immediately.”  As  to  a  progressive  trans¬ 
formation  in  glory,  and  possibly  in  happiness,  and 
a  growth  of  believers  after  death,  there  is  no  dis¬ 
pute,  but  the  Confession  is  decisive  in  its  statement 
with  regard  to  the  completion  of  sanctification  not 
after  but  at  the  hour  of  death.  As  to  Professor  Briggs’s 
“ bugbear  of  a  particular  judgment  after  death,” 
this  is  said  by  him,  to  be  a  terror  to  the  best  of  men. 
But  it  would  appear  from  Holy  Scripture  and  from  the 
work  which  Christ  has  accomplished  for  us,  that  fear 
of  a  particular  judgment  immediately  after  death  should 
have  no  terrors  for  him  who  is  clothed  with  the 
righteousness  of  Christ. 

The  question  to  be  decided  by  this  court  is  a  very 
simple  one.  Professor  Briggs’s  doctrines  have  been 
presented  in  evidence,  they  have  been  judged  by  com¬ 
paring  them  with  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  with  the 
standards  of  Presbyterian  doctrine.  Knowing  what  the 
Presbyterian  Church  teaches  and  what  Professor  Briggs 
teaches,  you  have  simply  to  decide  whether  the  doc- 


*Q.  37- 


43 


trine  of  the  Professor  agrees  with  that  of  the  Church,  or 
whether  it  does  not.  If  you  should  decide  that  the 
case  against  him  is  proven,  and  I  confess  that  I  do  not 
see  how  you  can  avoid  the  conclusion,  the  next  question 
will  be  as  to  the  essential  and  vital  character  of  these 
departures  from  the  standards  of  our  faith. 

I  think  you  will  all  agree  with  me  in  one  thing, 
whether  you  are  supporters  of  Professor  Briggs  or  not, 
and  that  is,  that  in  these  days,  when  we  are  assailed  by 
a  high  ecclesiastical  theory  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  a 
rationalistic  and  agnostic  philosophy  on  the  other,  it  is 
of  especial  importance  that  Presbyterians  should  be 
very  tenacious  and  decided  with  respect  to  the  au¬ 
thority  to  which  appeal  is  made  in  matters  of  religion. 
Let  it  be  observed,  however,  that  I  am  not  claiming 
that  the  doctrine  of  Professor  Briggs  should  be  con¬ 
demned  because  it  seems  to  be  radically  subversive  of 
the  Presbyterian  principle  of  authority.  That  has  been 
already  presented  to  you.  But  what  I  am  now  claiming 
is,  that  assuming  that  his  position  with  respect  to  the 
divine  authority  of  the  Church  and  the  Reason  is  heret¬ 
ical,  the  heresy  is  vital.  It  i§  vital  not  merely  because 
it  sets  up  the  Reason  as  a  divine  authority,  which  may 
dispute  the  claims  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  but  it  is  vital 
also  because  it  weakens  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
in  matters  of  faith  by  affirming  their  errancy,  by  denying 
their  authenticity,  and  by  reducing  the  doctrine  of 
inspiration  to  such  a  minimum  that  it  is  of  no  real  value 
to  us  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  In  like  manner 
I  think  that  you  will  agree  with  me  that  Prof.  Briggs’s 
theory  of  redemption,  is  vital  to  the  whole  scheme  of 
Presbyterian  belief.  It  is  opposed  not  simply  to  the 
doctrine  of  decrees  taught  in  the  Confession  of  Faith. 
That  claim  might  be  made,  but  there  are  some  who 
would  not  regard  such  a  departure  from  the  Standards 
as  heretical.  But  this  theory  of  redemption  is  essen¬ 
tially  out  of  harmony  with  the  cardinal  doctrines  of 
evangelical  religion,  not  to  say  of  Protestant  religion. 
It  strikes  at  the  roots  of  that  great  Protestant  principle, 
“Justification  by  faith,”  and  differs  from  universalism, 


44 


Naturalism. 


only  because  the  author  has  not  pursued  his  doctrine 
to  its  logical  conclusion.  And  the  doctrine  of  progress¬ 
ive  sanctification  after  death,  however  it  may  be  inter¬ 
preted,  strikes  at  the  foundation  of  certain  great  prin¬ 
ciples  upon  which  all  preaching  rests,  and  which  under¬ 
lie  the  missionary  efforts  of  Christendom.  But  I  am 
prepared  to  go  farther  than  this  and  to  notice  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  which  these  doctrines  are  an  evidence  and  a 
symptom.  Those  who  have  read  history  carefully,  will 
bear  me  out  in  the  assertion,  that  it  is  impossible  for  a 
man  to  present  a  radical  doctrine  with  respect  to  the 
fundamental  principles  of  religion,  without  that  doctrine 
carrying  with  it  a  principle — sometimes  a  principle  of 
scientific  method,  sometimes  a  principle  of  philosophical 
method.  I  do  not  claim  that  any  rational  philosophy  of 
religion  is  consciously  defended  when  Professor  Briggs 
piesents  doctrines  such  as  form  the  basis  of  the  charges. 
On  the  contrary,  it  is  just  because  he  seems  so  uncon¬ 
scious  of  what  his  principles  involve,  that  I  am  anxious 
to  call  not  only  your  attention,  but  his  attention,  to  the 
erroneous  principles  assumed  and  implied  in  the  teaching, 
on  which  the  Presbytery  is  to  be  called  upon  to  pass. 
It  is  not  that  Professor  Briggs  having  accepted  a  system 
or  method  of  philosophy  is  carrying  it  to  its  logical 
conclusions.  He  has  doubtless  reached  his  conclusions 
by  an  induction  of  facts  collected  in  his  study  and  from 
the  works  of  critical  writers.  But,  as  I  have  just  said, 
when  fundamental  doctrines  are  advanced  or  contra¬ 
dicted,  the  advance  or  the  contradiction  involves  a  prin¬ 
ciple  of  philosophy. 

Now,  what  philosophy  is  implied,  what  philosophy  is 
wrapped  up  in  the  theological  doctrine  which  Professor 
Briggs  has  tried  to  read  into  Holy  Scripture  and  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  ? 

I  answer,  and  I  shall  prove  my  answer,  that  his  doc¬ 
trine  is  an  expression,  whether  he  is  conscious  of 
it  or  not,  is  an  expression  of  the  naturalistic  philoso¬ 
phy.  It  is  still  a  disputed  question,  how  far  the 
naturalistic  method  may  be  employed  in  the  phi¬ 
losophical  sciences.  But  as  a  religious  method, 


45 

its  conclusions  are  radically  opposed  to  supernatural 
religion.  Examples  of  it  are  to  be  found  in  the  thought 
of  modern  England,  in  the  explanation  of  religion  from 
ghost  or  ancestor  worship.  Examples  of  it  in  Germany 
are  to  be  found  in  the  naturalistic  interpretation  of  the 
Hebrew  religion  by  the  school  of  Kuenen.  To  discuss 
its  tendency  specifically,  would  be  to  open  up  the 
wide  field  of  Apologetics.  But  in  brief,  it  may  be 
described  as  an  attempt  to  explain,  on  natural  principles, 
Christianity  of  the  historic  type,  or  as  Professor  Briggs 
would  doubtless  call  it,  of  the  traditional  type. 

Now  it  is  quite  possible  for  a  man  to  follow  this 
naturalistic  method  partially,  without  following  it 
thoroughly.  I  do  not  say  that  if  a  man  follows  it  par¬ 
tially,  he  is  bound  to  follow  it  thoroughly,  although 
some  men  are  remorseless  in  their  logic,  and  stop  at  no 
consequences.  Certainly  Professor  Briggs  does  not 
follow  it  thoroughly,  for  he  does  not  deny  many  of  the 
miracles  of  the  Bible,  and  he  writes  with  great  elo¬ 
quence  of  the  Theophanies  and  the  Christophanies.  The 
characteristic  of  this  kind  of  thought  is,  however,  to 
emphasize  the  interference  of  God  in  all  human  history 
in  such  a  manner  as  to  take  away  from  it,  that  exclusive 
character  which  Christianity  claims  for  itself. 

Let  me  call  attention  to  some  manifestations  of  this 
naturalism  in  the  writings  of  Professor  Briggs,  in  illus¬ 
tration  of  my  meaning.  Foremost  among  the  doctrines 
taught  by  him,  which  are  symptoms  of  naturalism,  is 
the  doctrine  of  the  divine  authority  of  the  Reason, 
which  is  placed  so  high  as  to  make  it  a  matter  of 
indifference,  so  far  as  men  are  concerned,  whether  they 
are  faithful  to  the  Word  of  God  or  not.  He  teaches  that 
it  is  a  matter  of  temperament  and  environment  which 
way  of  access  to  God  men  may  pursue.  Then  follows 
the  discrediting  of  the  Bible  as  a  divine  authority,  by 
pointing  out  its  errors,  as  well  as  by  advancing  a  theory 
of  inspiration  which  permits  us  to  speak  of  the  divine 
truth  of  the  Bible,  only,  as  we  speak  of  the  divine  poetry 
of  Milton.  Then  there  is  his  view  of  divine  prophecy 
which  discredits  the  predictions  of  the  holy  prophets,  on 


Liberty  and 
Toleration. 


4  6 

the  principles  of  naturalistic  thought.  It  goes  farther  in 
Professor  Briggs’s  work  on  Messianic  Prophecy* 
(referred  to  in  the  Inaugural  Address),  where  he  predi¬ 
cates  prophecy,  or  rather  prophetic  inspiration,  of 
heathen  writers.  Naturalism  appears  once  more  in  the 
doctrine  of  Miracles,  where  it  is  admitted  that  any 
naturalistic  interpretation  of  them  would  not  affect  their 
meaning  and  value.  In  the  treatment  of  redemption 
there  is  naturalism  where  the  plan  of  redemption  is  set 
forth  in  accordance,  not  with  the  explicit  statements  of 
the  Bible,  but  in  accordance  with  a  naturalistic  view  of 
the  unfortunate  condition  of  the  heathen,  and  an  un- 
scriptural  and  fanciful  doctrine  of  the  future  state.  These 
doctrines,  I  say,  are  manifestations  of  that  naturalistic 
principle  which,  in  the  hands  of  a  more  logical  writer 
than  Professor  Briggs,  would  be  pushed  to  far  more 
radical  conclusions. 

As  soon  as  we  begin  to  give  up  the  supernatural  ex¬ 
planation  of  religion,  we  are  likely  to  be  led  to  give  up 
all  religion,  at  least  all  religion  which  can  speak  with 
authority  in  correction  of  wandering  human  theories, 
and  false  sentimental  views  of  God,  and  of  Sin  and  of 
Salvation.  If,  then,  you  decide  that  such  divergences  as 
these  are  permissible,  you  have  given  liberty  to  a  method 
which  will  soon  leave  you  about  as  much  exclusiveness 
as  Christians,  in  having  the  oracles  of  God,  as  Mahom¬ 
etans  or  Brahmins  have. 

It  is,  of  course,  easy  for  a  man  to  say  :  Suppose,  how¬ 
ever,  I  am  convinced  of  the  truth  of  these  doctrines, 
will  the  Church  muzzle  me,  silence  me,  for  uttering  what 
I  am  persuaded  is  true  ?  This  brings  us  back  to  the 
question  of  heresy.  Look  at  the  principle  which  such 
a  question  involves.  I  can  imagine  a  man  after 
an  exhaustive  study  of  patristic  and  scholastic  litera¬ 
ture,  becoming  so  convinced  that  the  Roman  Church 
is  the  true  church,  that  he  might  preach  Romanism 
from  a  Presbyterian  pulpit.  It  is  not  likely,  but  I  make 
the  supposition.  The  Presbytery  would,  doubtless,  in¬ 
terfere.  And  then  suppose  that  he  should  say  :  “  You 


*  Messianic  Prophecy,  p.  33. 


47 


are  silencing  me  for  teaching  what  I  believe  to  be  true. 
You  are  not  experts  on  this  question.  I  have  devoted 
my  life  to  the  study  of  Roman  Catholic  literature,  and 
I  am  leading  you  on  in  the  paths  of  divine  Providence.” 
Possibly  you  would  reply:  “You  are  a  remarkable 
scholar ;  we  admit  that  no  one  of  us  has  given  as  much 
attention  to  the  literature  of  the  fathers  and  the  school¬ 
men  as  you  have.  But  our  church,  whether  mistaken 
or  not,  has  required  of  you,  at  your  ordination,  to  take 
a  vow  to  sustain  its  standards  of  doctrine.  We  are  not 
silencing  you  because  you  know  more  about  this  litera¬ 
ture  of  the  past  than  we  do,  but  because  we  believe  dif¬ 
ferently  from  you.  And  our  belief  is  not  something 
which  can  be  changed,  even  at  the  demand  of  a 
great  scholar.”  I  have  made  the  supposition,  but  there 
is  no  one  who  would  remain  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
long  enough  to  listen  to  such  a  reply.  He  would  take 
his  patristic  and  scholastic  literature  with  him,  and  go  to 
his  spiritual  director,  who  would  doubtless  tell  him  that 
if  he  had  not  left  the  church  of  his  own  accord,  the 
Presbyterian  Church  would  have  been  quite  justified  in 
inviting  him  to  leave.  A  heresy  trial  is  not  persecution, 
for  when  the  charges  are  proved  it  is  simply  proved 
that  the  accused  has  been  converted  to  another  form  of 
religion.  We  are  sorry  that  he  is  so  mistaken,  we  wish 
that  he  had  not  left  the  faith  in  which  he  once  believed, 
but  we  have  to  choose  between  our  own  doctrines  and 
his. 

The  question  meets  each  one  of  us,  are  these  doctrines 
of  Professor  Briggs  contradictory  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  and  to  the  Standards  of  our  Church  ?  In  approv¬ 
ing  of  his  teaching,  and  you  do  approve  of  it,  if  you  vote 
for  an  acquittal,  you  who  have  this  view  will  go  back 
to  your  respective  congregations  with  the  acknowledg¬ 
ment  that  your  view  of  the  Word  of  God  is  not  the 
view  of  the  prophets  and  apostles,  and  of  Jesus  Christ 
himself.  You  are  virtually  to  say  to  them  and  to  the 
world,  that  the  Bible  is  not  any  longer  regarded  by  you 
as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  but  that 
the  Reason  and  the  Church  are  also  fountains  of  divine 


48 

authority  ;  that  the  words  of  the  Bible  do  not  convey 
the  inspired  truth  ;  that  it  is  a  matter  of  temperament 
and  environment  which  way  of  access  to  God  men  may 
pursue  ;  that  the  whole  race  of  man  is  redeemed,  will 
be  justified,  sanctified,  glorified,  whether  they  be  elected 
or  not,  whether  they  be  heathen  or  Christian.  You  will 
tell  them  that  a  man  who  teaches  all  these  doctrines 
should  still  remain  in  that  ministry  that  has  been 
honored  by  such  men  as  Edwards,  and  Smith,  and  the 
Hodges,  and  Adams.  And  you  will  collect  money  for 
missions,  although  you  agree  that  most  men  will  be 
saved  in  the  Middle  State,  even  if  they  die  in  their  sins. 

You  will  agree  with  me  that  the  issue  is  of  vital  impor¬ 
tance.  Men  do  not  pick  out  a  victim,  and  then  search 
for  errors  in  his  doctrines,  so  as  to  have  the  peculiar 
pleasure  of  trying  him  for  heresy.  But  trials  for 
heresy  are  forced  upon  the  church,  when  clergymen, 
in  violation  of  their  vows  of  ordination,  and  setting 
at  defiance  the  Standards  of  doctrine  in  their  own 
communion,  persist  in  teaching  these  errors,  and 
decline  to  retract  them  specifically,  even  though  they 
claim  that  they  are  misunderstood. 

Every  one  will  admit  that  the  necessity  for  trials  of 
this  kind  is  greatly  to  be  deplored.  They  are  a  cause 
of  vexation  and  disturbance  to  the  Church,  and  tempo¬ 
rarily  divert  the  minds  of  men  from  that  great  object  of 
our  energies  and  efforts,  the  transformation  of  the  world 
to  the  likeness  of  Christ.  But  the  responsibility  for  this 
painful  process  rests  not  upon  those  who  are  loyal  to 
Presbyterian  doctrine,  but  upon  those  who  are  its  assail¬ 
ants.  And  unless  we  maintain  the  purity  of  our  faith 
we  shall  soon  have  no  pure  faith  to  proclaim  to  the 
world.  It  is  possible  that  even  those  who  disapprove  of 
Professor  Briggs’s  doctrines  may  hold  that  the  Church 
should  tolerate  differences  of  opinion  within  reasonable 
limits,  and  that  we  may  tolerate  what  we  do  not  ap¬ 
prove.  I  freely  admit  that  intolerance  is  a  bad  thing.  I 
should  be  the  last  to  deny  that  liberty  is  a  great 
treasure.  But  by  intolerance  I  do  not  understand  hold- 


49 


in g  men  to  their  obligations,  and  by  liberty  1  under¬ 
stand  conformity  to  law. 

There  should  be  no  attempt  to  obscure  the  issue 
which  is  now  before  this  Judicatory.  It  is  not  a  con¬ 
flict  between  the  Old  School  and  the  New  School.  That 
distinction  is  no  longer  recognized  in  our  Church. 
But  the  great  leaders  of  what  was  formerly  the  New 
School  party  were  among  the  staunchest  defenders  of 
the  authority  of  the  Bible,  and  it  would  be  a  slight 
upon  the  memory  of  men  like  Edward  Robinson, 
Henry  B.  Smith  and  William  Adams,  to  attribute  to 
them  opinions  which  they  would  have  repudiated.  Nor 
is  this  an  issue  between  the  Revision  and  Anti-Revision 
party.  None  of  the  points  raised  in  this  trial  has  been 
raised  in  connection  with  the  revision  of  our  standards, 
unless,  indeed,  the  proposed  words'*  relating  to  the  truth¬ 
fulness  of  Scripture  may  be  construed  as  designed  to 
strengthen  and  support  the  prosecution  in  cases  like  this. 
Nor  is  this  a  question  between  scholarship  and  ignorance, 
unless  the  Presbyterian  standards  and  the  Holy  Bible  are 
to  be  regarded  as  ignorant  teachers.  We  do  not  ask  that 
men  should  be  restricted  as  to  their  methods  of  research, 
and  we  are  ready  to  deal  with  any  new  hypothesis.  But 
what  we  do  demand  is,  that  when  men  advance  con¬ 
clusions  which  contradict  the  doctrines  which  they  have 
solemnly  promised  to  support,  they  should  be  challenged 
and  required  either  to  abide  by  our  doctrines  or  else 
submit  to  the  decisions  of  our  courts. 


The  Real 
Issue. 


*  Report  of  Committee  on  Revision  to  the  Assembly  of  1891. 


